Elon Musk as educator

[WG Plum]

I read that somewhere too recently. If you remember where you read it, let me know so I can remember too. I'll do the same.


-Mike

I think it was either the NYT or The Tlantic.

 

[WG Plum]

The idea itself is well established.

It's called "emotivism" (pejoratively, "hurrah/boo" theory)

Emotivism - Wikipedia

Well, we're in era of emotivism, then.

 

[hbarcat]

Well, we're in era of emotivism, then.

Of that, I'm absolutely certain.

 

[hbarcat]

As a true Scotsman, I submit.

Around this debate, moving on, witness a tangle of Occam's Razor-wire in the rubble. This is as it should be. Trouble presents itself, puffs out its chest. It's a veritable playground for trouble — also works very nicely, as a back-scratcher, for those hard-to-get-at regions. Society's problems will not be solved here. I have an itch to scratch.

In simple terms, overlooked, untended complexity stands out — othered — behind the wire. Fair and balanced takes a back-seat — the circular argument, a distraction, sutured-in, hits a brick wall, walks the razor-gang plank, loses all momentum — in an ocean of ideas — in the face of need, and warranted scrutiny.

There's no call, in truth, to be unnecessarily biased. Refrain. Bias is, ofttimes, ignorance. Wilful. Unnecessary. I humbly submit, teaching is the key to learning. And, stripped-back, it's simple.

In the real world, a teacher is a student, first and foremost, not an omnipotent dictator of terms. In the classroom, we share that journey, we share that burden. We teach. We learn. We learn to teach. We grow together, in the real world.

​

 

[Standalone]

To the best of my knowledge (I've checked, but I could be wrong), American public schools aren't teaching the scientific method as a skill unto itself. At best, it gets a page or two of lip service in introductory science and then more or less forgotten after that.

Completely absent is any mention of how to recognize logical fallacies. This deserves a semester of science class (at the very least, its own chapter) but it gets nothing.

Most adults don't even know what a logical fallacy is, although many people misuse and abuse the concept when they argue online, such as when they feel uncomfortable with their position and reflexively accuse another of making a "straw man argument" when no such fallacy has occured.




I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyway.

The best examples I can think of are interviews and recorded lectures from the late physicist, Richard Feynman. They're exceptionally good and thousands of professional scientists today claim him as an early influence.

That aside, when I studied physics/engineering in college, critical thinking and the scientific method were automatically built into the curriculum.

Which brings me back to what I said earlier about Carl Sagan warning us that our civilization is becoming increasingly dependent on advanced technology and science that only an elite few understand.

It would be wise for the general population to be taught (preferably from a young age) not just general science facts, but about how scientists think. The vast majority of high school graduates know a bit of Earth science and maybe some biology, and a few even take some chemistry and physics. But hardly any of them (I'd be shocked if it was more than 2% or 3%) could say what the scientific method was.

Issues like climate change are inherently scientific (the science of climatology) and they're critically important. But we have a huge segment of society that thinks it's a complete hoax because they're scientifically illiterate. They think that a few loudmouths on some podcasts are more credible than all the professional scientists on Earth who study it for a living.

That's a problem.

You are very misinformed about American Public Education.

The scientific method is the cornerstone of science classes from middle grades on.

Take a read through of the NGSS standards.

I thread mathematics and the scientific method into my ELA instruction as well. Essay writing and the scientific method are closely related in many ways.

You’re writing of logical fallacies and yet open your post with the fallacial belief that just because you are unaware of something that it is not in place.

Whether the school system is successful in this is another discussion.

Expecting schools to overcome disastrous economic policies especially in urban and poor rural parts of the nation is absurd. Quality schools can be part of the solution but not the entire solution.

 

[gln1955]

You are very misinformed about American Public Education.

The scientific method is the cornerstone of science classes from middle grades on.

Take a read through of the NGSS standards.

I thread mathematics and the scientific method into my ELA instruction as well. Essay writing and the scientific method are closely related in many ways.

You’re writing of logical fallacies and yet open your post with the fallacial belief that just because you are unaware of something that it is not in place.

Whether the school system is successful in this is another discussion.

Expecting schools to overcome disastrous economic policies especially in urban and poor rural parts of the nation is absurd. Quality schools can be part of the solution but not the entire solution.

All you need to do is go out and talk to a few random people about any scientific topic that should be relevant to every person to know the fundamentals of scientific inquiry are not taught well, no matter what your NGSS standards say.

I teach medical students. These are some of the brightest individuals coming out of college yet despite four years study in one or another science discipline, many struggle with the concepts of evidence-based medicine. Mostly, those who have actually done research, not just talk about it, are comfortable with the critical thinking skills involved.

 

[Tom Bomb]

General Education enters the room, a well-rounded figure, dressed in civies, unarmed, disarming, smart, here to learn about all wars, not just the ones he's destined to be fighting in.
​

 

[ElectroVibe]

Emotivism. Isn't this essentially the basis for people not liking some of Elon Musks statements?

 

[Standalone]

To the best of my knowledge (I've checked, but I could be wrong), American public schools aren't teaching the scientific method as a skill unto itself. At best, it gets a page or two of lip service in introductory science and then more or less forgotten after that.

Completely absent is any mention of how to recognize logical fallacies. This deserves a semester of science class (at the very least, its own chapter) but it gets nothing.

Most adults don't even know what a logical fallacy is, although many people misuse and abuse the concept when they argue online, such as when they feel uncomfortable with their position and reflexively accuse another of making a "straw man argument" when no such fallacy has occured.




I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyway.

The best examples I can think of are interviews and recorded lectures from the late physicist, Richard Feynman. They're exceptionally good and thousands of professional scientists today claim him as an early influence.

That aside, when I studied physics/engineering in college, critical thinking and the scientific method were automatically built into the curriculum.

Which brings me back to what I said earlier about Carl Sagan warning us that our civilization is becoming increasingly dependent on advanced technology and science that only an elite few understand.

It would be wise for the general population to be taught (preferably from a young age) not just general science facts, but about how scientists think. The vast majority of high school graduates know a bit of Earth science and maybe some biology, and a few even take some chemistry and physics. But hardly any of them (I'd be shocked if it was more than 2% or 3%) could say what the scientific method was.

Issues like climate change are inherently scientific (the science of climatology) and they're critically important. But we have a huge segment of society that thinks it's a complete hoax because they're scientifically illiterate. They think that a few loudmouths on some podcasts are more credible than all the professional scientists on Earth who study it for a living.

That's a problem.

The social problem of climate change is “inherently scientific?”

Humans have known the science for a hundred years.

This is a social problem and to think it’s only about eighth grade science is… well, of eighth grade.

 

[Standalone]

To the best of my knowledge (I've checked, but I could be wrong), American public schools aren't teaching the scientific method as a skill unto itself. At best, it gets a page or two of lip service in introductory science and then more or less forgotten after that.

Completely absent is any mention of how to recognize logical fallacies. This deserves a semester of science class (at the very least, its own chapter) but it gets nothing.

Most adults don't even know what a logical fallacy is, although many people misuse and abuse the concept when they argue online, such as when they feel uncomfortable with their position and reflexively accuse another of making a "straw man argument" when no such fallacy has occured.




I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyway.

The best examples I can think of are interviews and recorded lectures from the late physicist, Richard Feynman. They're exceptionally good and thousands of professional scientists today claim him as an early influence.

That aside, when I studied physics/engineering in college, critical thinking and the scientific method were automatically built into the curriculum.

Which brings me back to what I said earlier about Carl Sagan warning us that our civilization is becoming increasingly dependent on advanced technology and science that only an elite few understand.

It would be wise for the general population to be taught (preferably from a young age) not just general science facts, but about how scientists think. The vast majority of high school graduates know a bit of Earth science and maybe some biology, and a few even take some chemistry and physics. But hardly any of them (I'd be shocked if it was more than 2% or 3%) could say what the scientific method was.

Issues like climate change are inherently scientific (the science of climatology) and they're critically important. But we have a huge segment of society that thinks it's a complete hoax because they're scientifically illiterate. They think that a few loudmouths on some podcasts are more credible than all the professional scientists on Earth who study it for a living.

That's a problem.

The social problem of climate change is “inherently scientific?”

Humans have known the science for a hundred years.

This is a social problem and to think it’s about eighth grade science is… well, of eigth grade.

General Education enters the room, a well-rounded figure, dressed in civies, unarmed, disarming, smart, here to learn about all wars, not just the ones he's destined to be fighting in.
​

I enjoy your posts.

 

[Standalone]

I cannot fathom how you came to that conclusion.

Ask any questions you may have. I’d be glad to know if I am in the wrong. But “I don’t get it” is hardly a strong refutation

 

[Tom Bomb]

Flattery will get you everywhere.​

 

[Standalone]

To the best of my knowledge (I've checked, but I could be wrong), American public schools aren't teaching the scientific method as a skill unto itself. At best, it gets a page or two of lip service in introductory science and then more or less forgotten after that.

Completely absent is any mention of how to recognize logical fallacies. This deserves a semester of science class (at the very least, its own chapter) but it gets nothing.

Most adults don't even know what a logical fallacy is, although many people misuse and abuse the concept when they argue online, such as when they feel uncomfortable with their position and reflexively accuse another of making a "straw man argument" when no such fallacy has occured.




I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyway.

The best examples I can think of are interviews and recorded lectures from the late physicist, Richard Feynman. They're exceptionally good and thousands of professional scientists today claim him as an early influence.

That aside, when I studied physics/engineering in college, critical thinking and the scientific method were automatically built into the curriculum.

Which brings me back to what I said earlier about Carl Sagan warning us that our civilization is becoming increasingly dependent on advanced technology and science that only an elite few understand.

It would be wise for the general population to be taught (preferably from a young age) not just general science facts, but about how scientists think. The vast majority of high school graduates know a bit of Earth science and maybe some biology, and a few even take some chemistry and physics. But hardly any of them (I'd be shocked if it was more than 2% or 3%) could say what the scientific method was.

Issues like climate change are inherently scientific (the science of climatology) and they're critically important. But we have a huge segment of society that thinks it's a complete hoax because they're scientifically illiterate. They think that a few loudmouths on some podcasts are more credible than all the professional scientists on Earth who study it for a living.

That's a problem.

This response very much falls short of being a response. What of feynman’s lectures would you convert into curriculum? How?

I red Feynman at fourteen. I don’t see on his writings a complete roadmap to national science ed policy, as much as I respect and enjoy his writing.

I have an Ed.D. In Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies.

Elon Musk does not.

I’m interested to hear your specific plan for implementing what you are talking about but it will be difficult to convince me.

 

[FRoss6788]

Emotivism. Isn't this essentially the basis for people not liking some of Elon Musks statements?

Really?

 

[Standalone]

Really?

I feel like Elon Musk just told me that I should “smile more.”

 

[fdeck]

It's almost obligatory for famous tycoons to have opinions about education. But I suspect that trying to create a university from scratch is a fool's errand. The same money would be better spent on supporting public universities and community colleges, which are the jewels of our education system.

 

[FRoss6788]

It's almost obligatory for famous tycoons to have opinions about education. But I suspect that trying to create a university from scratch is a fool's errand. The same money would be better spent on supporting public universities and community colleges, which are the jewels of our education system.

Thank you

YES!

 

[WG Plum]

It's almost obligatory for famous tycoons to have opinions about education. But I suspect that trying to create a university from scratch is a fool's errand. The same money would be better spent on supporting public universities and community colleges, which are the jewels of our education system.

Well that ties it up nicely.

 

[hbarcat]

The social problem of climate change is “inherently scientific?”

Humans have known the science for a hundred years.

This is a social problem and to think it’s only about eighth grade science is… well, of eighth grade.

You said "social" problem. I didn't.

The actual "physical" problem itself can only be understood in complex scientific terms. It's a subset of the science of climatology.

I guarantee that less than 99.999% of the population is incapable of even a basic working understanding of the science behind anthropogenic climate change. It's taken me hundreds of hours of studying the IPCC reports plus countless references and supplements etc.. for me to even get a decent grasp of how it all works.

The point is (again) that our modern civilization depends upon advanced technology, and it's becoming increasingly more fragile the more advanced it gets.

In fact our technology is actually altering the atmosphere in ways that we don't fully understand except that we know it's significant and that it's not good.

Solving the problem will involve sociopolitical motivation. But understanding the problem and finding a solution to the problem can only come from an understanding of science, and if the public at large is scientifically illiterate, then it's going to make it far more difficult to convince enough people of the necessity to solve the problem, or even that the problem exists.

 

[hbarcat]

This response very much falls short of being a response.

Of course it does. I said that I didn't understand your question. It's not even grammatically correct and it makes no sense. I just took a shot at trying to answer.

If you want a better answer, please restate the question more clearly.

Thank you.