Why, oh why, don't many physics programs EDUCATE?

[Sankaku]

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did.

Yes!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did. By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

Well put.

 

[D H]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it, ...

Since you love analogies so much, let's try another: Did your readings about the early history of thermometers help you understand the modern concept of heat one iota ([thread=430875]this thread[/thread])?

A proper scientific reading of Principia takes a long, long time. As alxm already mentioned, it took Chandrasekhar years to wend his way through Newton's prose and geometric arguments. As any scientist or engineer can attest, reading speed of technical information, even well-written technical information (and the Principia, by modern standards is not well-written) is agonizingly slow. The very quick style of reading that must be done to survive in a liberal arts education is not going to teach any science. Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

 

[Geremia]

Not only do I disagree with the sentiment the OP's expressing, I find it a distinctly anti-scientific attitude.

It depends how you define science. If you mean a chain of syllogisms from first-principles, I disagree. If you mean devising hypotheses that save appearances only, I agree.

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did.

So basically science "re-invents the wheel" each generation? What advantage does that bring?

By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

Of course Aristotle was not 100% correct. Would you agree that modern science is based on some of his truer teachings, though, e.g., the methodology of his Posterior Analytics?

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

And what specifically about that history should I note? Thanks

 

[Geremia]

Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

What makes you think that? I would think they know objective truth exists and can be known.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Since you love analogies so much, let's try another: Did your readings about the early history of thermometers help you understand the modern concept of heat one iota ([thread=430875]this thread[/thread])?

1) That's not an analogy, it's an example.

2) Yes!

3) Has your cynical attitude ever helped anybody understand something better? Anyway, I'm not interested in it, so for future reference: I don't need your attempts at it.

 

[D H]

Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

What makes you think that? I would think they know objective truth exists and can be known.

First off, nice quote mining. My post said exactly why I think that. Here's what you cut out:

A proper scientific reading of Principia takes a long, long time. As alxm already mentioned, it took Chandrasekhar years to wend his way through Newton's prose and geometric arguments. As any scientist or engineer can attest, reading speed of technical information, even well-written technical information (and the Principia, by modern standards is not well-written) is agonizingly slow. The very quick style of reading that must be done to survive in a liberal arts education is not going to teach any science. Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

Have you tried reading The Principia on your own? Reading a convoluted, poorly written journal paper is a snap compared to reading Newton. Here's a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ. I'll be real blunt: From the perspective of learning physics, there is nothing to be gained from The Principia. The physical reasoning is rather convoluted, the mathematics incredibly archaic. Newton was writing for a different time and different audience. He did not have the benefit of 300+ years of post-Newtonian development.

So let's fast-forward a couple of hundred years to Maxwell's 1865 article on A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. A link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field.pdf. The writing certainly is more modern, but the mathematics is not there yet. Mathematicians had invented the rudiments of vector analysis by 1865, but that knowledge had not made its way across the mathematician/physicist divide. Physicists had yet to invent there own version of vector analysis.

The original writings that you feel are so important have little, if any, value from the perspective of science education. Instead, those writings have historic value and offer insight into how brilliant people think. Those brilliant people who came up with these ideas were indeed brilliant, but that brilliance often did not extend to the real of communication. Even those who also were great communicators, they suffered from being too attached to the way they developed the concept. Those initial brilliant ideas are a bit clunky. After the fact, lesser minds found ways of expressing things more elegantly, more clearly, and more succinctly. Well after the fact, new developments in mathematics and science enabled an even clearer expression of those concepts.

 

[G037H3]

Someone please make me a list of mathematics works similar in importance to the physics works in the OP. :)

 

[Theorem.]

There is a difference between learning history and physics

 

[D H]

There is a difference between learning history and physics

Exactly.

Those students at St. Johns et. al. are not learning science with this teaching method. They are learning history of science or philosophy of science -- both of which are liberal arts concerns.

What is sad is that while students of science, technology, engineering, and math have to take a good number of liberal arts courses to obtain their bachelors degree, liberal arts students have to take *no* real science, technology, engineering, or math course. We have to sit side-by-side with future lawyers and politicians in liberal arts classes. The remedial courses that some STEM students have to take typically do not count towards the liberal arts distribution requirements. The same is not true for liberal arts students. They can use ridiculously dumbed down classes such as "Physics for Poets" to meet their science distribution requirements. Even St. Johns, purported one of the best liberal arts schools in the country, does not require students to take calculus until their junior year. Many liberal arts schools do not require students to take calculus ever. How can one learn any science without calculus?

 

[inflector]

It seems to me that it really depends on what type of physics you are going to practice.

While I certainly agree that reading original sources might not be fruitful in many cases for learning the actual science, a thorough understanding of the history of physics is useful to those who are going to be working on advancing science through theory or experiment rather than through application. I believe that researchers benefit from understanding those researchers who came before them. What sorts of paths led to particular discoveries and what sorts of paths were dead ends, etc.

If you are going to largely work in areas of incremental improvement where being able to apply a knowledge of physics is most important, then learning about the history of physics is less useful. If, for example, you are going to build trading models on Wall St., then it is probably a waste of time to learn about the history of physics to such depth unless it is a personal interest.

 

[Andy Resnick]

How can one learn any science without calculus?

While I agree with the majority of your post: our previous Dean for example, never had intro Physics, I don't think biologists would agree with the sentence above. NIH gives out about $40B/year for projects that do not require calculus.

My point is that if we want science to become more integrated into a liberal arts education, it has to be done on *their* terms, not *ours*. Critical thinking does not require calculus.

 

[D H]

My point is that if we want science to become more integrated into a liberal arts education, it has to be done on *their* terms, not *ours*.

Why does it have to be done on *their* terms? That silly notion leads to silly classes such as "Physics for Poets" and such. When we take liberal arts classes we do so on *their* terms. There is no "Creative Writing for Engineers" classes. If we want to take creative writing we take it right alongside English majors. If we want to learn Greek or learn to paint we take it right alongside linguistics or arts majors.

We have to take such courses on *their* terms because (a) *their* terms are the right terms for *their* courses, and (b) we aren't so mentally deficient that we cannot take one liberal arts course per semester taught on *their *terms. Saying that we need to teach science to liberal arts students on *their* terms is implicitly acknowledging that they are mentally deficient in some way. I disagree.

Critical thinking does not require calculus.

Any critical understanding of physics or chemistry most certainly does require calculus. Top-notch biology programs require their students to take calculus because a critical understanding of biology also requires calculus. Calculus is the starting point of the mathematics education for almost all science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.

 

[jhae2.718]

I have to agree with the sentiment that calculus is a requirement for scientific understanding. Focusing on physics, I don't see how you could even come close to a full understanding. Without a knowledge of calculus, derivation of the equations cannot be fully understood. For an extremely simple example, how would somebody lacking calculus derive the position function for some particle? Blindly memorizing a series of equations is not understanding.

How can you understand Maxwell's equations without calculus?

Since so much science deals with rates of change of quantities, calculus is key. Any "science" degree that only begins calculus in the third year is not a "real" science degree, IMO. (FWIW, I am an engineering student.)

 

[Ryker]

What constitutes knowledge of calculus, though? It's taught in every high school, so one could argue that people do in fact know it, despite not taking university-level courses.

 

[D H]

What constitutes knowledge of calculus, though? It's taught in every high school, so one could argue that people do in fact know it, despite not taking university-level courses.

It is offered in high schools, but it is not mandatory. Heaven forbid! One reason people go into non-technical degrees is because they only have to take a very small number of math or science classes. I just did a spot check on the requirements for math and science education in various liberal arts departments. Some require ONE class, period. Most appear to require three maybe four classes. They are not required to take one real math or science class. Math and science departments offer classes specifically aimed at the liberal arts student such as Physics for Poets, where the teaching is done on *their* grounds.

Speaking of Physics for Poets, a brief excerpt from the essay It's Time to End 'Physics for Poets' by Edward Morley (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley):

The second subtext [that we will happily accommodate their distaste for science and mathematics], however, is disturbingly accurate. We do make special accommodations for students who are uncomfortable with science, and particularly mathematics. We offer special classes that teach science with a minimum of math, and we offer math classes at a level below what ought to be expected of college students. Admissions officers and student tour guides go out of their way to reassure prospective students that they won't be expected to complete rigorous major-level science classes, but will be provided with options more to their liking.​

In comparison, most science and engineers have to take eight to ten liberal arts classes to obtain a bachelor's degree, and they do not have the option of choosing courses such as "Poetry for Physicists" to fulfill that requirement.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Why does it have to be done on *their* terms?

Because like us, they have the right to set their own curriculum.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Any critical understanding of physics or chemistry most certainly does require calculus. Top-notch biology programs require their students to take calculus because a critical understanding of biology also requires calculus. Calculus is the starting point of the mathematics education for almost all science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.

I have to agree with the sentiment that calculus is a requirement for scientific understanding. Focusing on physics, I don't see how you could even come close to a full understanding. Without a knowledge of calculus, derivation of the equations cannot be fully understood. For an extremely simple example, how would somebody lacking calculus derive the position function for some particle? Blindly memorizing a series of equations is not understanding.

How can you understand Maxwell's equations without calculus?

Since so much science deals with rates of change of quantities, calculus is key. Any "science" degree that only begins calculus in the third year is not a "real" science degree, IMO. (FWIW, I am an engineering student.)

Again, I am sympathetic to this view. However, I see no justification here that a history major (or a psychology major, or a political science major, or a communications major, or...) *must* be conversant in calculus in order to be an effective citizen. I see no justification for the claim that every college graduate must understand Maxwell's equations- especially since the majority of physics majors, upon graduating, do not. Why is your attorney *required* to know calculus? Why does your surgeon? What about translators?

What's getting lost in this, is what constitutes a well-balanced education. For example, what is more important: for a history major to be exposed to the scientific arguments for evolution, or the chain rule? Like it or not, the average US citizen can't do algebra. Forcing philosophy majors to take 9 credits of math just to force calculus on them is counterproductive, and the College representatives to the faculty senate will not approve those changes.

 

[Andy Resnick]

In comparison, most science and engineers have to take eight to ten liberal arts classes to obtain a bachelor's degree, and they do not have the option of choosing courses such as "Poetry for Physicists" to fulfill that requirement.

I'm not sure that's universally true, either. I went to RPI, and had to take 1 course per semester of 'non science' courses. These included gym, Psych 101, Science Fiction literature, and 'music in society'. Those are blow-off courses.

 

[D H]

I just looked at the graduation requirements for a physics degree from RPI: 24 credits in humanities and social sciences. (I couldn't find the corresponding requirements for the School of Engineering.) I hope RPI doesn't count gym in the humanities or social sciences. 24 credits is typically eight 3 credit classes, which is a whole lot more than the corresponding number of math and science classes that most liberal arts students need to take.

Because high schools no longer educate, a lot of schools have found they need to offer remedial reading and writing classes for their students. In many science, technology, engineering, and math schools, particularly top tier ones, those remedial classes do not count toward the humanities, arts, and social sciences requirement.Another way to look at it: Those humanities, arts, and social sciences classes you had to take were indeed easy compared to your math, science and engineering classes. While you were pulling all-nighters and studying into the weekend, your liberal arts cohorts partied all weekend long -- and their weekends started Thursday afternoon and ended Tuesday morning.

 

[Dale]

My 2 cents:

1) I think that it is fine for liberal arts majors to take "physics for poets", but I would also like to have the engineers be able to take "history for physicists". I think that this kind of targeted teaching can be very effective. By far my best course ever was a "physiology for biomedical engineers". The professors had a medical background, but they really made an effort not to design a class for pre-med students, but for engineers. They focused on concepts of mass and energy transfer in biological systems. The result was fantastic, and I really liked the model. I think that it not only benefits the students, but also the professors who need to step out of their comfort zone and really learn to see their subject from an outsider's perspective.

2) I do not think that the best way to gain a physics education is to read the seminal works as suggested by the OP. In fact, far too much time is spent teaching Newtonian mechanics and relativistic thought experiments and far too little time is spent teaching Lagrangian's and Minkowski geometry. Science has progressed far since Newton and even since Einstein, and those early papers are often very rough. I think that a historical approach to physics is counterproductive.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Another way to look at it: Those humanities, arts, and social sciences classes you had to take were indeed easy compared to your math, science and engineering classes. While you were pulling all-nighters and studying into the weekend, your liberal arts cohorts partied all weekend long -- and their weekends started Thursday afternoon and ended Tuesday morning.

What does that have to do with anything? Hopefully you aren't advocating for all college students to be as miserable as I was?

 

[Andy Resnick]

My 2 cents:

1) I think that it is fine for liberal arts majors to take "physics for poets", but I would also like to have the engineers be able to take "history for physicists". I think that this kind of targeted teaching can be very effective. By far my best course ever was a "physiology for biomedical engineers". The professors had a medical background, but they really made an effort not to design a class for pre-med students, but for engineers. They focused on concepts of mass and energy transfer in biological systems. The result was fantastic, and I really liked the model. I think that it not only benefits the students, but also the professors who need to step out of their comfort zone and really learn to see their subject from an outsider's perspective.

I totally agree with this. As another example, I wish I was taught how to write properly- grant applications, papers, etc. I asked around my old employer for a course like this (writing for techies?), and while there was plenty of courses designed to help non-english speaking technical folks, there was nothing for me.

 

[D H]

What does that have to do with anything? Hopefully you aren't advocating for all college students to be as miserable as I was?

Depends. If you worked more than fifteen hours a week while you were going to college, a tip 'o the hat to you. The comments that follow do not apply to you. If you were the typical college student who worked less than ten hours a week (or not at all), lived on campus, and had practically no responsibilities outside of going to college, then yes, I do. For one thing, think back as to how much spare time you had in college, even with all the studying you had to do. Part of your supposed misery resulted from seeing your cohorts goofing off almost all the time.

For another, I do want our country to continue to be competitive, and I truly do wish that the people who make our laws had even the slightest idea of understanding of what science, technology, engineering and math are truly about.

 

[jhae2.718]

I totally agree with this. As another example, I wish I was taught how to write properly- grant applications, papers, etc. I asked around my old employer for a course like this (writing for techies?), and while there was plenty of courses designed to help non-english speaking technical folks, there was nothing for me.

For my engineering degree plan, I have to take a course in technical writing (haven't taken it yet); my university also offers several courses in scientific communication. Recently, it seems that a lot more emphasis is being placed on communications skills for engineers. (I guess we're moving forwards from "Yesterday I didn't know how to spell 'enginear' and now I are one...")

Depends. If you worked more than fifteen hours a week while you were going to college, a tip 'o the hat to you. The comments that follow do not apply to you. If you were the typical college student who worked less than ten hours a week (or not at all), lived on campus, and had practically no responsibilities outside of going to college, then yes, I do. For one thing, think back as to how much spare time you had in college, even with all the studying you had to do. Part of your supposed misery resulted from seeing your cohorts goofing off almost all the time.

For another, I do want our country to continue to be competitive, and I truly do wish that the people who make our laws had even the slightest idea of understanding of what science, technology, engineering and math are truly about.

Hmm...in what time I'm not working or studying or writing M-files, I'm doing physics, math, writing M-files, and writing about math, science, etc.? (What does that say about me?)

I don't see it as being necessary for liberal arts students to have a scientific understanding on the same level as that of science/engineering students, but I do think that it is critical that all students have at a minimum a grasp of the fundamentals of the sciences. Overall, I agree with you. College is perhaps the point where "real" education starts (lower grades seem to be a "pass-everyone-so-you-don't-hurt-their-feelings" type of affair; that's a broad generalization and I'm sure that good programs exist, but overall I think the rigor of our educational system, at least at primary and secondary levels, is declining.), and shouldn't be squandered.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If you were the typical college student who worked less than ten hours a week (or not at all), lived on campus, and had practically no responsibilities outside of going to college, then yes, I do.

That is a reprehensible attitude and anti-education. Rather than using science to balance some of the egregious faults of a liberal arts education, you seem to be more concerned with how unfair life is. Guess what- life is unfair. Some people don't have to work as hard as you.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I don't see it as being necessary for liberal arts students to have a scientific understanding on the same level as that of science/engineering students, but I do think that it is critical that all students have at a minimum a grasp of the fundamentals of the sciences.

Exactly- a fundamental tenet of a liberal arts education is "all viewpoints have equal validity". While this is fine for analyzing works of art, it fails when considering say, a budget. Science provides a means to evaluate different viewpoints and further, provides unambiguous methods to determine accuracy.

That is what should be added to the liberal arts curriculum- critical (logical) thinking, and developing an ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.

 

[D H]

That is a reprehensible attitude and anti-education.

How, exactly, is wishing that all kids received a good education anti-education? How, exactly, is wanting legislators to have some knowledge of the things they are technical issues legislating reprehensible? How, exactly, is hoping that our country remains competitive reprehensible?

 

[Andy Resnick]

How, exactly, is wishing that all kids received a good education anti-education? How, exactly, is wanting legislators to have some knowledge of the things they are technical issues legislating reprehensible? How, exactly, is hoping that our country remains competitive reprehensible?

Because you are *not* saying all kids should get a good education, you are claiming *all* kids should spend hours every day learning calculus because it is good for them to work long hours at drudgery.

 

[jhae2.718]

It's not that kids should spend hours every day learning calculus for the sake of spending time learning calculus; it's that to fully understand a subject, especially a technical subject, time is required to practice, etc.