Back in 1974, I was looking for a way to improve the weak ignition of my Yamaha 250. I was tempted by an ad that ran every month in Cycle magazine, for a product called Cycle See/Dee. It was around the time that the new capacitor discharge ignitions were replacing the conventional points and coil ignitions, and I guess that to me "See/Dee" meant the same as "C.D.". I ordered it and installed it on the bike. I was a little surprised at how it connected into the circuit, basically replacing a two wire into one connector. I did some testing and found no change at all in my ignition performance. Then I got suspicious of the See/Dee versus CD moniker. I decided to take it apart and after chipping away the Bakelite insulator, I found no electronic or electrical components inside. It was nothing but three terminals connected together by ordinary wire inside the insulator.I felt like I had been duped, and rather than ask for my money back, I sent a letter to Cycle telling them what I had found. My letter was never printed. But I never saw another ad for Cycle See/Dee again. Maybe it was a coincidence? And on later reflection, I wonder if I had even been fair in my testing, and if I was really justified in my letter to Cycle magazine. I tend to have a lot of self doubts due to the numerous mistakes I have made in the course of my life, which I seem to have a hard time forgetting. But at the time, I was pretty sure of myself. And I hate thinking that I'm gullible.
Gullibility is a factor in propaganda, one might say the most important factor. Because not only do gullible people eat up the propaganda directed to them, but they will act on it, and they will only increase their ardour if the enemy attempts to reason with them.
So I went on the Internet looking for some way to detect the amount of gullibility in a particular person. What I found was that most gullibility tests seemed to be designed in particular to fish for gullible people, in order to push some dubious product, service or propaganda at them. And so I came up with the "Gullibility Paradox". Stated simply, a person trying to test their gullibility, is already gullible. And, the less gullible you feel, the more you are.
http://www.naturalnews.com/gullibility.html
Notice in the link above, one of the questions will tell you it is true there is an almost infinite supply available of clean hydrogen fuel, which is actually false if you look it up. (Hydrocarbon is the word they were searching for) And that the sponsoring web site has a video touting a perpetual motion machine.
As a former high school physics teacher, I'm sure you share my concern about the relatively poor grounding in science (not to mention history, politics, finance, &c.) that high school graduates seem to have these days.
ReplyDeleteThe basic concepts of thermodynamics, electricity and electronics seem to be missing, perhaps because the science curriculum has been so dumbed down as to make it accessible to the lowest common denominator.
So it's hardly surprising that people continue to purchase implausible products such as HHO generators for their cars.
However, I do find it encouraging that the Obama administration (per Steven Chu) has decided to slash the Bush administration's boondoggle of $1.2 billion to the putative hydrogen automobile industry.
The gullibility of policymakers with respect to the 'hydrogen future' has irked me for years.
Thinking back, I just realized that I never taught Physics in Canada. I did have kids in school, and always went for the parent teacher interviews.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, from what I saw, the curriculum itself would have been OK if the students learned it properly. And I'm sure some did.
There is some stuff -for kids who take an interest. For example an annual Robotcs competition is a great way for kids to be exposed to practical physics and shop. My kids never had a chance to get involved, though. The Ontario championship is often held a Rim Park in Waterloo. And I think that there are going to be more of these.
Perhaps I was being overly harsh.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, in any cohort of science students there will be a small number that will learn 'outside the texts' and pursue the subject as a personal interest (or even obsession!).
Those of us who, in the early 1960s, spent our evenings and weekends breadboarding circuits for tuners and amplifiers have now likely been succeeded by kids who construct robots or cold fusion gear ;-)
But, by grounding, I was referring to developing the ability to actually select applicable principles, integrate and apply the factoids and formulae to novel problems. Simply being able to regurgitate definitions and solve basic formulae does not, in my humble opinion, constitute scientific understanding.
However, it would appear that I have misdiagnosed the problem somewhat, if
this article has any merit.
Rather than dumbing down (i.e. oversimplifying content) the curriculum, it'd appear that the Physics curriculum has become excessively 'content-intensive' ... resulting in 'rote memorization and regurgitation' with limited opportunity for development of those vital 'analysis and synthesis' skills.
In the final analysis, I fear, the effects would be much the same.