SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
how can THAT be communicated in 6th grade terms without losing nearly all the information requested?
Isn't that the crux of his question?
All science education is about presenting half truths that children can understand - and then later teaching them a more accurate explanation that the earlier one has primed them to understand. 'Lying to children*' if you will
In many cases the lies follow scientific history - we learn Newtonian physics before Relativity, Newtonian Physics is wrong, or at least only right under the particular circumstances in which we commonly find ourselves. It's right enough to be bloody useful though.
We learn about evolution by tracing Darwin's discoveries, we add om Mendelian genetics and eventually if you go far enough you'll learn about the modern synthesis, genetic drift etc.
But we've had a hundred years or more to work these things out and so have developed useful memes to teach them. Our modern understanding of time is recent and esoteric.
I agree it is a huge challenge to teach about it in an understandable yet meaningful way. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try or set it up as a goal.
*
The definition given in The Science of Discworld is as follows: "A lie-to-children is a statement that is false, but which nevertheless leads the child's mind towards a more accurate explanation, one that the child will only be able to appreciate if it has been primed with the lie". The authors acknowledge that some people might dispute the applicability of the term lie, while defending it on the grounds that "it is for the best possible reasons, but it is still a lie".Statistics: Posted by A Person — Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:49 pm
]]>