Differences in Teaching Phys Vs. Chem/Bio?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Teaching
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences in teaching and conceptual understanding between physics and the biological/chemical sciences. It explores how knowledge is gathered and evaluated in these fields, particularly focusing on the terminology and philosophical underpinnings that distinguish them.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note a significant difference in how theories are perceived in physics versus biology, with biology treating theories as established facts post-experimentation, while physics views theories as subject to ongoing investigation.
  • A participant suggests that the natural sciences exist on a continuum, with physics dealing with well-defined systems and biology with complex, messy systems, indicating that terminology may not translate directly across disciplines.
  • Another participant argues that biology faculty emphasize the demonstrable nature of evolution as a fact, countering the notion that it is "just a theory," and that biology's theoretical framework is largely established, though new areas like epigenetics are emerging.
  • One contributor reflects on their experience transitioning from chemical engineering to physics, highlighting the challenges of abstracting theoretical principles in chemistry compared to the ongoing theoretical development in physics.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the relative simplicity of physics allows for clearer mathematical modeling, contrasting it with the complexities found in chemistry and biology.
  • A participant references historical philosophical perspectives on knowledge in physics, indicating that earlier theories may not meet contemporary standards for scientific theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of theories in physics versus biology, with no consensus reached on whether these differences are universally applicable or specific to certain academic contexts.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the implications of terminology and the philosophical foundations of each field, with some participants noting that the definitions and applications of terms like "theory" and "hypothesis" vary significantly across disciplines.

  • #31
Andy Resnick said:
You did indeed- the abstract states quite clearly:

'I was surprised to find that perceptions of scientific pedagogy varied significantly among the scientific disciplines, especially concerning issues of philosophy of science and epistemology, manifested in the approaches to teaching theoretical concepts and their development.'

As I repeatedly stated, my remarks were restricted to *pedagogical* differences for *introductory* courses.

But how about the emphasis on "philosophy of science and epistemology?" If anything, biology puts hypothesis testing up front and quantitatively in genetics. That is exactly the same method used in discovering the Higgs boson.

So far we have mainly discussed how "advanced" the mathematics used is, which is really tangential to "philosophy of science and epistemology".
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
I feel trapped in a Kurosawa movie...
 
  • #33
Andy Resnick said:
I feel trapped in a Kurosawa movie...

Well, we shall just have to disagree then, since our experiences in biology are different. Mine was as a student, having done biology at every level, but never having taught it - and as an amateur in physics, also having taught freshman physics. Yours is as a professional physicist, and now addressing the question as one also teaching introductory biology.

But I have to ask then - if there is a difference - then how do things "make sense as a whole"? Is there something missing in introductory biology as well as introductory physics, and biology and physics bring complementary perspectives? Or is there a clash of cultures, with one view being inferior or contradictory or less general to the other?

Also, if you use a different philosophy in research, why don't you teach that philosophy to your students? Don't you want your students to have the best and most modern view?

I will now make it a point to watch some Kurosawa :)
 
  • #34
As I have said repeatedly throughout this thread, I believe the thesis of the paper in the OP is wrong. It does not describe any level of biology education that I had. And yes, I acknowledge that Andy Resnick is an expert in this area, and I am quite intrigued (and disturbed) that he gives the paper in the OP support.

So I want to add yet another point of rebuttal to the paper. Section D of the paper describes the postulation "What if gases are made up of tiny particles, too small to see, and they just bounce around inside of a volume and don’t interact with one another?". What I wish to stress is that this sort of postulation is not unique to physics, and that Mendel's postulate of a gene and its independent assortment is an analogous sort of theorization.

Another articulation of that analogy is found in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3176118/.

One of the great theories of biology is evolution. Evolution is analogous to cosmology in that both ask questions of history. The interplay of particle physics and cosmology described in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201178 is analogous to the interplay of the laws of inheritance and evolution named the "modern synthesis".
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
15K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K