Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Scientific theory is better science when it wins
a fair test, meaning a new set of data that wasn't taught
illogically with either of the others, when it wins multiple
fair tests, when there are no deviant data points,
when you know why the deviant data points are deviant,
when you know the causal basis, et cetera.
So the question is, what are a couple of examples of what
you'd like students to compare, and what are the criteria you
could teach them to use to solve multiple comparisons?
They have to be criteria that can be used over and over again
in your course which, at least in my case, turned out to be
criteria that I could ask them to then use in problems that had
nothing to do with basic science, like sports.
So, two or three examples of things they compare,
and as many criteria as you can list in the next three minutes.
[no dialogue].
[general audience chatter].
Alright, the key thing here then is, beyond what I said first,
which is, you need the criteria and the comparisons, you also
need examples that stick, like Baskin-Robbins or Big ***.
Examples that will stick in the student's mind
and lead to intuitive understanding.
There are people who argue that most people understand things
first through stories or vibrant examples, and second through
logic and analysis.
And so you need the vibrant examples or stories to back
it up, not just the abstract logic, to help it stick.
That is, Baskin-Robbins really lets you see what it feels like
to live in that level of decision.
Does that make sense?
So touchstone examples as well as comparisons and criteria.
When the students get here, the facutly member tends to think
they've died and gone to Heaven, because they can now play
the game of the discipline.
They may believe the game of the discipline, or they may be
hidden multiples like the Wellesley students in
"Women's Ways of Knowing."
But they can tell you what you want to hear.
They can tell you how evolution fits the game of science
better than intelligent design fits the game of science.
They can tell you here's how you play the game of science,
and here's what makes good science, that is, what makes
good science and bad science.
And this is why astrology's not and astronomy is,
why evolution is and intelligent design isn't, et cetera.
And then you can even teach them another game that allows them
to compare relativity, quantum mechanics, plate techtonics,
evolution, to tell great science from weaker science.
And they can find out that evolution is as good as
great science gets.
That doesn't necessarily mean you should accept it
or believe it, but it does mean that you should be able to say,
within the game of science, this is how it stacks up.
This, why, this is enough to make me bipolar, right?
What has a sense, I ought to be able to see everybody,
but there you are, I didn't.
Physically impossible, physiologically and physically.
We may even get to where Bertrand Russell,
in his "History of Western Philosophy", asked
why would anyone want to study the history of philosophy?
Why do you care about old mistakes?
And he says, you're not studying the history of philosophy to see
how people were wrong.
That's too easy.
Your task is to try to understand how intelligent,
sometimes brilliant people ever came to believe such things.
How did that ever make sense?
Why would anyone, how, in a sympathetic sense are walking
in their moccasins.
How do you get that?
He says, and you do this to the end that you better understand
the probable limits of your own views.
And if they could have gotten there, and you can understand
how they got there, you begin to have a sense
of your own fallibility.
One of the main contributions, major contributions I mean
to say, of "Women's Ways of Knowing" is to point out that
for a lot of people, you don't really learn this
in the classroom.
Perry thought classes at Harvard were irrelevant
to the development of critical thinking.
And indeed, the way we teach most of our classes are
irrelevant to the development of critical thinking.
Rather, he said, the problem is you get a roommate who you know
is a good person, who's doing things no good person could
possibly do, so you can tell that they're a good person.
But the puzzle becomes how can they do that?
How does that makes sense within their game?
And what "Women's Ways" found is that a lot of us learn
to do critical thinking by trying to learn to walk
in the moccasins of an emotionally significant other.
A parent...lover...roommate.
What they called connected knowing instead of separate.
And sometimes we can utilize that in the classroom,
but usually we're stuck with teachers' games, because it's
not as easy to get that deeper connection with the students.
But we can look for ways where the students
become emotionally connected.
One law professor found in teaching law clinic, the puzzle
of law clinic is how do you get people to identify sufficiently
with the powerless in society to represent them fairly,
enthusiastically, and sympathetically?
And back when the AIDS crisis hit and a lot of middle class
homosexuals were suddenly fired and made impoverished,
the students in law clinic could see that that might
have been them.
And it turned out to be a bridge to relating to other groups
of under-powered people.
Because they could see how they, too, could become under-powered
and impoverished.
So you can look for the emotionally significant bridges
if they fall within the scope of your content.
Is this making sense?
But because we've got students here, it's not yet enough.
Biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists know a ton
of stuff you actually don't want to know.