Teaching Science Badly – and Well

#51 dullabhatti sahib

No, that`s what is not factual. To be religious has got nothing to do with learning science or not.

Mullahs in Pakistan are in absolute minority........Majority Pakistanis are moderate and good Muslims , they sure are scientists, MDs, engineers, economists.......and theologists.....

Dogmas do not prevent or stop us from learning sciences.........and mind it sciences are not just learning Physics sitting in a Lab, it is very broad specturm approach.....

I think the larger point that Dr PH is making is that the education system due to excessive interfence and influence of the religious dogma does not encourage students to pursue science and other academic subjects with inquisitive mind with a structured logical approach. Student is encouraged from young age to accept the ``text`` as a fact without questioning it. That leads to a culture of ``ratta`` education that many of us have grown up with. This more or less applies to both countries although religious dogma is not big part of the education system in India as it is in Pakistan.

My feeling is the cultures that believe in the concepts like ``word of God`` or routine recitation and acceptance of religious scriptures are more prone to above behaviour. Here is the knowledge from the highest source and here are you the receiver who is supposed listen to it, accept it without any doubt, repeat it and practice it. Reapeating and practicing of this knowledge alone is supposed to bear the fruits. Since practicing is harder than repeating or reciting we eventually fall in this trap where our mind starts believing that mere reciting this knowledge is enough...questioning, investigating and improving the body of knowledge takes the back seat. This applies as much to us Sikhs as it applies to Muslims...Brahmins on the other hand made a creative use of these recitals of the text as a tool to make earnings and livelyhood in this life (unlike just doing so to improve the prospects of the next life)..so they may be little better off in this sense than us.:-)

GT#: ``Sure economics is important. But the author asserts that if you have to do science then do it in a way that makes it enjoyable. What`s wrong with that?``

...there is nothing wrong with it.......i never said there was......i am just highlighting the fact that people in pakistan (and probably in other third world countries) do not avoid science because they hate it............i think hoodbhoy is wrong in saying pakistanis avoid pure sciences because they consider it, ``the most wretched of subjects at school.``

i think they avoid pure sciences because of economics........they tend to go into fields where scieince is applied, which is why medical colleges and engg universities have the highest merit lists........far higher than arts or religion or pure sciences.......this indicates they do not consider science, ``wretched,`` otherwise no one would get into anything related to science, including medicine or engg. or comp. sci in pakistan..........

....i am probably one of the only ones on this site who actually pursued a pure science academically.......math being the purest of the pure sciences..........however i soon realized that if i wanted to do anything with it, i had to get a ph.d.......anything below that, i would need to been in a more applied field.....

.....and over my career, even the usa, i have interviewed more than my share of pure scientists who wanted jobs in the software field.......in fact, most of the resumes i see from candidates from russia tend to almost always have pure science ph.ds. etc from russia....however they seem to want jobs in IT.....true for many americans also.....i have seen ivy league ph.ds in pure sciences applying for jobs in IT........however, i doubt too many Ivy league comp. sci grads would be applying for jobs in the pure sciences field.......

.........hence economics has a lot to do with it........

Re: # 47

khurram:

Point taken

arjun:

``Science as it`s taught in India is certainly not enjoyable``

Agreed!

Science as it`s taught in India is certainly not enjoyable. It`s just that Indians are more willing and more able to make a name for themselves. And they don`t have the whole ``strive for jihad for allah or pbuh-dude`` hangup....

Re #42,
``But the author asserts that if you have to do science then do it in a way that makes it enjoyable. What`s wrong with that?``

Nothing wrong at all.
But the author does a little more.He identifies this as the cause of ``why then do only a few students in Pakistan want to become scientists``

zeemax & bulleya offered another, more plausible, explanation.

scinece in its purest form is not an economic activity nor is it meant for economic return. It just improves the human condition.
The sort of science Romair and zeemax are talking about is economic science - which is not meant for pleasure nor interest but is driven by economic interest. Indeed, it has been found that even then, this economic scicnce cannot be driven forward if looked upon purely in terms of economic return. This economic science is neither pure nor applied science in the strictest sense - it is the science of the money-lender. (economic scicne is not Economics please donot mix them).

Money motivation doesnot make good scince (pure or applied). It becomes boring, banal, crap, and you end up as a General Drone making money for someone else. The good professor makes eminent sense.

La allah, illilah, Mohammad-ur-Rasulallah

End of Science

#42

Perhaps because the Romair subscribes to a different school of thought - that if there is a simple idea which can be communicated to most people in the simplest of words, one must strive to find the most convoluted explanation and the murkiest words around to enhance its scope uniformly over approximately ten full-scape pages. And it is all absolutely ``enjoyable``.

Dr. Hoodboy,
I love science. Thanks for your sincere feelings and rational thoughts.
Best wishes,
Minhaj

Re: # 26

bulleya:

Sure economics is important. But the author asserts that if you have to do science then do it in a way that makes it enjoyable. What`s wrong with that?

#14........nonsensical approach.

#17 zeemax and #21 Shah2

Totally agree with you guys..............Dr.Hoodboy seems like a little school boy sitting in a small laboratory doing some basic experiment and thinks this the whole universe................and is unable to see beyond..........Very myopic view.

#28 by khurram

[Btw, did you even read the article you linked to?]

I know what you mean, yaar. But you are reading that piece all wrong. Its writer (let’s not get into naming names here) took all the FUN out of it.

Let me explain. Using the same set of facts, here is how I would have written it (in part):

Obviously, for Einstein, Physics was the first (and for all practical purposes, the only real) love of his life. The same is probably true of many geniuses, not just scientists, who really accomplish in their chosen field but sometimes come up desperately short in their personal ones, perhaps thinking that the rules for simple folks do not apply to them. There is always a lot of “chiraag taley andhera” with some of these geniuses.

However…

This Einstein dude may have been rude and crude – but he was no prude – and for sure not a dud as a stud!! People like us know that there IS space in the scheme of things for simple janitors – not just geniuses – when they hear sentences like “He is a genius but you wouldn’t want to marry him.”

Just look at the facts! Marie did his laundry and other little things as token of her love for him. After all, what is life but just a bit of his dirty laundry to carry! Here was a man who dumped Marie but continued sending his laundry to her, which she did willingly. Either he took his women for granted, or he took his laundry VERY seriously – or perhaps he made no distinction between his women and dirty laundry!

And what did he do in Berlin? He grew friendly with his cousin Elsa with whom he slept while he was still married to Maleva. Talk about kissing cousins! And before marrying Elsa, he had considered marrying her daughter, Ilse, instead. A true do-gooder who never discriminated based on age!

And Elsa – bless her heart – permitted good old Al to see his mistress twice a week in exchange for keeping a low profile. Old Al being the scientist that he was – always looking for new challenges driven strictly by curiosity and the desire for knowledge – grew bored with her within a year and looked elsewhere for sex. Ah the good old days when wives were SO very understanding! Those creative juices needed a lot of stimulation to flow. It perhaps gave a new and literal meaning to the popular phrase – “behind every successful man, there is a woman!” Einstein was of course more than just “successful”, so extrapolate the number of women accordingly!

I wonder if it would work in reverse?

Re: # 31 zeemax, I have no clue since I have never studied there.
BUt here is my guess (based on my students figures): pure MSC in IITs is a straight 5 year course - they do not have BSc. On an average in the Maths, Phys, Chem they produce some 150 in each institute=750. Hod knows how many more from the other universities in thec ountry.

But that is besides the point.

For any progress to be made you need two things

(a) thinking/theory
(b) hands

Pure sciences enable the development of fundemental knowledge, whikst the others are applied. If you rely solely on applied sciences, you end up using knowledge developed by others....

I will develop this further...got to catch my train back to Euston

#35 by samar1982

No. Actually not. Regrettably it isn`t. Otherwise I would kick your puny ass real good.

In the event, continue to spew your sophomoric BS .. :~)