self-reinforcing misconceptions

A brief video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8

-Carl

    Interesting, and bizarre because the question in the video was NOT clear to me at all and the alternative "show people videos of every misconception they may have and why they are wrong" seemed like an incredibly inefficient, if effective, way of learning. :-D

    The possible answers for the question of the forces on a basketball right after leaving the player's hand were
A) upwards and constant
B) upwards and decreasing
C) downwards and constant
D) downwards and decreasing
E) tangent to the ball's path

   Obviously the force is downwards, otherwise the basketball's upward motion would not be decelerating.
  However, many students may not know the difference between force and kinetic energy and thus state the "force" is upward because the motion is upward when they are actually discussing kinetic energy.  Defining kinetic energy in this context would solve this confusion...plus be useful elsewhere (they learn an extra definition in the process).

    People may also be confused into thinking the force is not constant as the motion appears to be moving slower and slower upward.

  However, virtually no beginning physics course explains that the force is the derivative/slope of the motion...which just happens to be a straight line slope AKA a constant slope.  If people understood how derivatives work there would be no need for tons of counter examples to explain what's going on, IMVHO...plus people would gain a visual understanding of derivatives and, yes, be able to use them elsewhere.

   Also, to note, why my calculus teacher did not explain derivatives visually as slopes of sorts is beyond
me...  As soon as my father did so I had an AHA moment and could visually explain things like why trigonometric derivatives were shaped as they were.

---------------------------
   Personally, well I DO believe counter-examples work in things like physics for learning, I believe they work by memorization of "what not to do", which makes learning new things slower.  I also firmly believe the answer in fast and attentive learning lies in detailed explanations of WHY something works exactly how it does.

That was very interesting.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> A brief video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8
>
> -Carl
>

indeed interesting - changing one's mind, one's paradigm is difficult.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> A brief video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Difficult, but this is a skill in itself, which can be
practiced and improved upon.

-Carl

At 01:51 PM 3/21/2011, you wrote:
>indeed interesting - changing one's mind, one's paradigm is difficult.
>
>On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A brief video
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> indeed interesting - changing one's mind, one's paradigm is difficult.

What do you suppose happens if you try to teach them Einstein rather than Newton?

And that's one of the keys to it I think. If science constantly presents laws, then later tears down the laws with a new paradigm, how do you, with any confidence, present what you're teaching as anything 'real'?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@> wrote:
> >
> > indeed interesting - changing one's mind, one's paradigm is difficult.
>
> What do you suppose happens if you try to teach them Einstein rather than Newton?
>

To be a scientist you *need* to be open to changing paradigms or you stop
producing original work I think. (Einstein couldn't accept quantum mechanics
even though he was instrumental in creating it and boxed himself in).

I thought it was the general population that the video was after.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:08 PM, plopper6 <billwestfall@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> And that's one of the keys to it I think. If science constantly presents
> laws, then later tears down the laws with a new paradigm, how do you, with
> any confidence, present what you're teaching as anything 'real'?
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > indeed interesting - changing one's mind, one's paradigm is difficult.
> >
> > What do you suppose happens if you try to teach them Einstein rather than
> Newton?
> >
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>And that's one of the keys to it I think. If science constantly
>presents laws, then later tears down the laws with a new paradigm, how
>do you, with any confidence, present what you're teaching as
>anything 'real'?

But that's what reality is. If you want to teach reality, you
have to teach it. Constructivists like Montessori, Piaget, Papert,
Kay, etc. teach the method directly at a young age. -Carl

Interesting stuff, I'll need to read up on the philosophy of teaching and learning (I know nothing about it currently)

I do have a relevant story that ties back to the microtonal topic too: I knew an amateur musician who lectured me once (in a very long, detailed, and mathematical way) on how 12-TET was the only valid tuning system. He did not know I had any interest in these theories, in even a superficial way, so I listened quietly and nodded my head.

But suffice to say I did not listen to my 'teacher' that day.

I just bring this up to say it's important to learn, but maybe more important to pick the right teacher

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >And that's one of the keys to it I think. If science constantly
> >presents laws, then later tears down the laws with a new paradigm, how
> >do you, with any confidence, present what you're teaching as
> >anything 'real'?
>
> But that's what reality is. If you want to teach reality, you
> have to teach it. Constructivists like Montessori, Piaget, Papert,
> Kay, etc. teach the method directly at a young age. -Carl
>