Science: stone house or a pile of rocks

We have talked a great deal about what science is and isnt, and the ideas and notions behind the nature of science are really interesting (it's the discipline and follow-through that scares me). I do appreciate the proposition that science isn't "truth," and isn't equiped to seek truth.

Science is an exploration of our world and what makes it "work." It's built with facts, and more facts. But: facts alone are not enough -you need to forumlate something with them. As the famous scientist and philosopher Henri Poincare' wrote, 'an accumulation of facts is no more science than a heap of stones is a house.'

In other words we need to know what to do with all the facts assembled in order to make something useful of them. But one scientist's facts can be another's conundrum: one scientist see's significance in a pile of facts, and another totally misses it. As teachers of science we should embrace the examination of facts, to test, justify and quantify facts as part of our teaching.

If science were a car it would run on radial facts; it would be gassed up with suppositions in the tank, and a constant spark of ideas for the battery. But you may drive the car around and not get anywhere . . . maybe you don't know the several routes to your destination . . . suddenly your headlights flicker, the wipers stop working and the radio starts playing easy-listening oldies. You end up crashing the car! That's what science can be, and whay observation, recording and ideas are needed.

I think most people tend towards simplistic notions about science: done in a lab, in lab coats with test tubes and Frankenstein sparks and electrical arc machines. That common perception that there is a single scientific, step-by-step method to follow, that ends up with the "answer." However the tentativeness of science makes one "answer" impossible.

And anyway, one answer in science just leads to another question, and then another and another, as in the Socratic Method. The Soctatic Method is an important teaching strategy that will aide us in our classroom management (by keeping students engaged) and help as an important assessment tool. Science is a dynamic study that requires a dynamic approach.

Standards

Last week's classes were instructive, and perhaps more important, interesting. I feel that the standards that we have talked about so much were very evident in the class, and in a more tangible manner. While it's easy to read over and memorize a set of standars that are presented, "understanding" what they really mean in teaching is another thing. I think we experienced them in an interactive conversation of learning, through our community of the classroom, and it was excelent .

I say "conversation" because teaching should be a conversation between people, or specifically in our case between teachers and students. Simply imparting information to a group of students is not enough to be "real teaching" in my view; true teaching needs to be an experience of mutual exploration, a communication of ideas, and a step by step developement of concepts. One answer always follows another. Students and teacher's alike may be enlightened.

This Socratic method of instruction, continuous questioning, is effective for our education. I hope that we can put it to use ourselves for our future students. Last weeks classes were effective models of of such teaching, providing a positive sense that education should be a dynamic relationship within that community of the classroom. Not just a spoon-fed set of expectations, rubricks and "questions that will be on the test."

Of course it was magic

The question: Why is "magic" not a good enough answer for how the spot disappeared and re-appeared on the tongue depressor in Tuesday's class with Dr. Kruse.

I believe that this is the wrong question. I believe that the question should be why not.

Why isn't "magic" the answer? Let's look at the facts and examine our options...I saw it appear and disappear...the whole class did. I think it was magic. We need to be able to address all possibilities as a teacher, and not cast off an answer as ridiculous or simply not an option.

While I recognize that some personal, societal and cultural beliefs may reject my contention, I say that we should be careful of pre-conceived perceptions and interpretations unduly influencing our judgment. "Of course it's not magic...there is no such thing as magic" is not a scientific look at the phenomena of spots appearing or disappearing on the tongue depressor. When a student suggests an answer, we need to consider it and explain our thoughts scientifically.

We all carry perceptions and interpretations of life with us. While we may think that we're using standard scientific procedures and criteria to minimize personal influences, we usually draw the line somewhere. "No such thing!" But until further information is available to test my hypothesis, I will support the contention that what we saw was magic. And any dismissal based on personal beliefs is not supported by the facts.

Do you have difficulty believing in magic? Why? Experience suggests that the vast majority of the human race believes in it - usually called "miracles;" so why should there be any problem with "magic?" Is there a substantial leap from one term top the other? Let's look at miracles;

According to Merriam-Webster, a miracle is "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." Humanity, society, and individuals routinely cite miracles for explanations for things aren't understand. Seems like we see miracles all the time. For instance:

- Men and women of science - medical Doctors - often cite miracles in medicine when they cannot explain a recovery scientifically.
- Religious leaders regularly cite miracles, preaching on TV to millions; in fact the Roman Catholic Church "saints" deceased believers based on investigations and confirmed reports of miracles performed.
- Survivors of a fiery car crash or plane crash claim that it was only by a miracle that they survived.
- Whole societies believe in miracles because they read about them in the bible.
- Even lottery's - the mathematical certainly that a random number combination is chosen - is still believed to be a miracle by the winning ticket owner.

So large segments of society throughout history- and today - believes in "miracles." With this nearly omnipresent belief in the supernatural - how does "magic" differ? ("Do you Believe in Magic?" The Lovin Spoonful, 1965.)Maybe it's just a case of semantics run amuck. Merriam-Webster defines magic as "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source . . . " Pretty similar to the definition of "miracles," no? How can you believe in miracles and not magic?

So, I suggest my hypothesis is sound. Even though it's not yet at the level of a scientific theory. (I understand that in science "a 'theory' is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true." Science Daily.) However - my magic hypothesis is based on evidence just the same, certainly more evidence than many of the examples of miracles cited above. It's based on actual observation of all the students in the room today. We all saw the spot appear and disappear with our own eyes . . . the balance of evidence is in the favor of magic.

Finally, as I are student learning how to teach science, I should be prepared to design experiments to test, quantify, confirm, modify, or even contradict magic, testing this hypothesis. So perhaps it will be proven correct or incorrect by additional data in a future class. But until we can exact those tests, my contention is that it must have been magic .

Which Standard....?

What standards do I think that I will struggle with the most?

That's easy at this point of the semester - "Content and Activity Selection" is where I am weakest. The issues of appropriate science content for me at this piont is a concern, because I have less experience in actual science than any other area I will be teaching in.

History of science? Love it.

Philisophical issues and social barrierers to the free study of science? Check.

Managing the learning process? Got it.

But the experience in what content is most appropriate, or applicable - and to what age group - that is a quandary for me right now. Not that I'm worried; I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything. (And the more I learn, the more I realize that.) So I am ready to give it my best. We can't be afraid of learning.

That's what was so confounding to me about our class discussion(s) about the assessment and grading systems in this class. Hey, I want to protect my grade point as much as anyone else, but we shouldn't let fear of a different process for learning (and demonstrating that learning) keep us from a challenge. Why are we in college anyway? Hopefully to learn from different perspectives and views. The "same old-same old" in assessments and grading procedures would be boring.

But I digress. As to the standards, I am hoping to find the resources and the acumen to effectively teach and inspire my students in science, just as in every discipline. I look forward to the semester.

Day One, Teaching Science. Interesting take on teaching so far, and I look to a more unorthodox approach in this class...blog set up, materials filled in, ready to roll for day 2