Bad Physics Rant!!

[paulsterio]

My sister told me that her teacher taught her class that astronauts on the International Space Station orbiting Earth float around because there is no gravity when we leave the Earth's atmosphere.

Why is it that the world seems to have such bad understanding of Physics? Like seriously, just because a certain concept is too difficult to explain doesn't mean that we have to teach kids what is pretty much false.

It bugs me because it's probably the general consensus within the community that there is no gravity when we leave Earth's atmosphere, which can ultimately be traced back to people being taught incorrect facts.

What's everyone elses' opinion on the teaching of incorrect facts, not just in physics, but in all other academic areas. (An example I see time and time again is - "it's neutral because the pH is 7" even though the teacher said that on a boiling 38 degree day)

[Bhootnike]

I'm assuming your sister is not in secondary school yet?

Because yea, most primary school teachers I've had have had a similar idea!
Maybe it's because of that thinking that has established somehow that once your in space, you float,and so there's no gravity...!

[paulsterio]

Nah she's not

But I still think it's a very bad idea, because it's just not true, and I kid you not, when I've tried teaching Year 11 Physics students that what they've been told over the past 10 years is actually wrong, I can honestly say a lot of them don't take it very well at all.

But that thinking isn't right, in fact, you float because you are in free fall, accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 centripetally.

[Bhootnike]

Nah she's not

But I still think it's a very bad idea, because it's just not true, and I kid you not, when I've tried teaching Year 11 Physics students that what they've been told over the past 10 years is actually wrong, I can honestly say a lot of them don't take it very well at all.

But that thinking isn't right, in fact, you float because you are in free fall, accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 centripetally.

O wow. I guess senior teachers up to about yr 10 won't know then!!!
dayum.

Mmm i can imagine, its one of those things yeah, that without proper knowledge, people will 'assume' or believe to be true! also the case with the pH example you gave!

regarding the floating...Heheh yeah, good ol unit 3! Technically we shouldnt even say 'float' cause we're not 'floating' :p we're falling XD

BTW. Would you say that, when someone says...  'x' causes 'y', there'll in most cases wrong because 'x' doesn't CAUSE 'y' ?
i see this in a lot of answers in science ? 
i avoid it all the time...

[nisha]

Maybe it is because these teachers do not have the capacity to teach children (a quarter of their age) a concept quite beyond their years?
Or on the flip side...maybe they were not educated enough to actually know the real reasons?

[Stick]

My teacher in Grade 6 told me that a day is when the Earth revolves around the sun. I actually had an argument with her and lost. <_<

[paulsterio]

Oh I meant that she's still in primary school, but junior secondary teachers aren't that much better!

Well that's very true, people believe what they see and as long as it makes sense, they will believe it.

In your example of X causing Y - you can't just say X causes Y because what does "cause" actually mean - in fact, what you are trying to say is one of two things, either "X is necessary to cause Y" or "X is sufficient to cause Y" - both of which have different meanings.

Maybe it is because these teachers do not have the capacity to teach children (a quarter of their age) a concept quite beyond their years?
Or on the flip side...maybe they were not educated enough to actually know the real reasons?

I personally think it's because they were not educated enough to actually know the real reasons, because most people without any knowledge of physics will still think that in order to maintain a constant velocity, you must maintain a constant force - which is a concept that's as old as Aristotle. So clearly, many people have misconceptions.

My teacher in Grade 6 told me that a day is when the Earth revolves around the sun. I actually had an argument with her and lost. <_<

One of my teachers tried to tell me that the capital of Canada is Toronto. But yours is worse.

[Lasercookie]

Vegit's going to love this thread (and some of his more sensible criticisms of VCE Physics are valid).

I guess though, my current understanding of forces really only built up from Year 11 Physics. Before that, in Year 7, 8, 9 science etc. where my understanding was wishy-washy at best. I think some of the 'theory' that you were taught back then was a bit wishy-washy too, in that it left a lot of things unexplained.

A lot of what I knew then has been superseded by what I've learnt from VCE subjects, and now that those explanations 'make sense' to me, that's how I think. I find it a little bit hard to try and think back and picture what was going through my head in Year 7.

I remember learning in Year 7 about atoms/particles, and how they behave in the liquid, solid and gaseous state. I also remember being confused about the difference between a particle and an atom and a molecule (which was cleared up in Year 11 Chemistry). The curriculum does kind of build the foundation of all that fundamental, taken for granted things, but the focus (varying by the teacher you have, probably), is probably too textbook oriented and not enough in the context of discovering what makes the world tick.

I do remember going from the end of Year 9 science to the start of Year 11 Physics was a huge jump in approach though (that might be related to adjusting into VCE style classes though). I don't actually remember what was taught in Year 7, 8, 9 science all that well.

My most vivid memories of that period are of the practical experiments we did. I think the quality of the teacher (or more so the effort they put in) and what they were able to explain does come into it a lot when it came to that primary school / lower secondary science. (I'm sure we've all had dud science teachers at some point).

By the time VCE hits, you're a decent bit more independent in the way you learn and can deduce the questions and what answers you want to know more easily. That isn't to shift the blame for any flaws in science teaching entirely onto the teachers though.

[Bhootnike]

Oh I meant that she's still in primary school, but junior secondary teachers aren't that much better!

Well that's very true, people believe what they see and as long as it makes sense, they will believe it.

In your example of X causing Y - you can't just say X causes Y because what does "cause" actually mean - in fact, what you are trying to say is one of two things, either "X is necessary to cause Y" or "X is sufficient to cause Y" - both of which have different meanings.

Maybe it is because these teachers do not have the capacity to teach children (a quarter of their age) a concept quite beyond their years?
Or on the flip side...maybe they were not educated enough to actually know the real reasons?

I personally think it's because they were not educated enough to actually know the real reasons, because most people without any knowledge of physics will still think that in order to maintain a constant velocity, you must maintain a constant force - which is a concept that's as old as Aristotle. So clearly, many people have misconceptions.

My teacher in Grade 6 told me that a day is when the Earth revolves around the sun. I actually had an argument with her and lost. <_<

One of my teachers tried to tell me that the capital of Canada is Toronto. But yours is worse.

O woops misread my own post!
Thought I asked if she was in primary school :p
but yeah, back on topic - the teachers for like yr 7-9 dont have to actually study science into great depth.
i think as long as they have a dipEd or BeD they can teach! which sucks!

i tried explaining my year 9 science teacher capillary action and she said there was no such thing as per her knowledge... :S lol, she thought I was talking about peristalsis... *facepalm*

And yeah! I hear in class discussions or when people talk to me.. "oh, so is it because this does this and causes that?"
i think about explaining the idea of having a strong correlation, but that might confuse them in that, 'o so, theres a chance that this doesnt actually cause this? its just, a strong possibility that it does?!'

[max payne]

Yeah and while there at it, they might as well also explain how "gravity" is really just the curvature of spacetime pushing us down...

[My name aint bob]

Partial hijacking regarding gravity: when people say   "_____ is just a theory? go jump of a bridge, Gravity's just a theory."

Gravity isn't a theory, its an effect we observe. we have theory's about how we observe it and as far as i know, we don't completely  understand everything about it.
The fact that this saying has become so embedded in pop-science and that people cant make the distinction between an effect and a theory  bothers me, and im just a VCE student.

/endquietrant. 

[pi]

Well, this all comes down to my underlying stance that "physics in school is an absolute joke". This is due to the lack of it in the junior sciences and at the VCE level, let's be honest, the physics at the VCE level is more calc-bashing and reading stuff of a cheat sheet more than actual understanding of concepts and appreciation of the science.

As for what Paul's sister was told. I'm not completely against it, this is for a few reasons:
1) Sometimes it's better not to give an overly complex answer that'll take a while to explain, how far should you go? And I mean, does her primary school teacher even have a good grasp of it? If he/she doesn't, that's not particularly unexpected, most people aren't going to be floating around in space and hence most people don't really care how it happens.
2) Maybe she'll realise she's being lied to and won't pick VCE physics
3) Everything you learn starts off at a very basic level, and this basic level always cuts corners and always dumbs down very complex concepts. In primary school, it's best not to confuse and just like in junior science, it's better to get students to understand the concept of pH before saying that it changes at different temps. Not everyone (students) can handle so much thrown at them, at that's fair enough.

If your sister asked you or your parents "how are babies made?" I wonder how far you'd want to go with it. Sometimes it's best to tell a few white lies to avoid overwhelming people too early imo.

[Bhootnike]

You make valid points LP ( yes, gone the days of vege)  - btw u should add 'Greatly' to your name just so i can abbreviate it to LPG :p

but i think what paulos was alluding to as the main concern is that, people; in this case some teachers, dont know the concept or fundamentals behind say, gravity,pH etc.
also electricity btw.. ! bad knowledge on that !

in turn, they teach the wrong thing and kids get the wrong impression.
when they finally learn it, theyre like wtf?
i can say this has happened to me, ive definitely misunderstood things like gravity - as a kid i always thought there was no gravity in space, and when i got to physics this year and learnt otherwise, it was hard to get my head around..

maybe the pH thing is a bit complex, but gravity...mm, i always wondered why food started orbiting peter in family guy.

[Lasercookie]

3) Everything you learn starts off at a very basic level, and this basic level always cuts corners and always dumbs down very complex concepts. In primary school, it's best not to confuse and just like in junior science, it's better to get students to understand the concept of pH before saying that it changes at different temps. Not everyone (students) can handle so much thrown at them, at that's fair enough.

I agree with this, and it's not only at primary school level but at VCE Physics too. This idea is introduced, somewhat, in VCE Physics (and VCE Chemistry) where we have the idea of a model, and the models can be superseded.

I think it's good to realise that our knowledge, at best, is always flimsy. Someone might come tomorrow and disprove what we thought was to be taken for granted, it might be unlikely, but I don't see how we could rule out that possibility.

A model being superseded doesn't mean it's wrong though. For example, Newton's Laws is accurate enough to explain the everyday motions that we experience. Once you start thinking of other situations, and find that Newton's laws falls down, you have to switch to a more recent model.

I think this idea also relates to when you read about Newton's time, and when it would be very hard to argue against those big-shot scientists who had made big-shot discoveries, simply because their name preceded them.

But yeah, I think a lot of us will have come across times where we are told 'it's beyond the study design, don't worry about it', and some of the time it's for a good reason, because it very quickly gets complicated. You also have a lot of simplifications/assumptions in VCE Physics (and VCE Chemistry) to keep things from getting too hectic.

That doesn't mean that we won't be able to, at some qualitative level, understand those concepts beyond the course. I think it is good to realise what the frame of our painting looks like and where it's been hung. You're able to see where things are going, why our understanding currently is flawed to an extent and also find for that particular topic, that to explore beyond VCE level might actually be beyond us.

I think I'm rambling, contradicting myself and not making much sense now. It probably comes from the confusion in "how much depth should we go?" and "how much of it will we understand?" which is something that will vary topic to topic. In some topics covered, sometimes going out of the course will remain highly relevant. Sometimes you'll learn something else a bit off-topic and come to a realisation about on-topic matters.

The question is, how do we include that in education? This is one of the my major annoyances with VCE especially, where exams are looming and there simply isn't enough time to explore everything in depth (well at least to the level that I can understand) and go on tangents. The latter is definitely my preference, and I can't really think of how something like that could be integrated into the VCE (apart from having teachers that also like to explore everything in depth and go on tangents).

I think this is also why the VCE textbooks (especially Heinemann Physics) also ramble and have all those random pages with irrelevant content. I admit, I didn't really like that during 1/2 and start of 3/4 physics, but I came to appreciate that a bit more later last year and also this year (partially because I can understand whatever the hell the textbook is trying to say now a bit better).