> I should probably be happy that they learn
*something* about tech history.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
Err, no. IMHO learnign incorrect information is
worse than not learing it
at all.
. . . and then, when they become teachers, they promulgate that same
nonsense as confirmed fact"
Oh don;t ge me started... The computing teracher I had at school was
sufficiently clueless that I failed the exam (at the tiem of taking said
exam I could progrom in BASIC, pascal and forth and had hand-wired my own
Z80-based computer). Now I'll happily admit to not knowing all sorts of
areas of computing, but this was not an advanced exam....
I also never had a signle maths or physics teacher who I regarded as
clueful. Fortunately I did a rather better job of teaching myself the
good bits of those subjects.
That's how we get Elisha Gray and Leif Ericson
dropped from history,
What I find suprising is that the books I have on telephony, going back
over 100 years, don't mention them either.
[...]
Fact checking is NOT required, not encouraged, when writing a history
textbook. Curricula is finalized by the most ignorant.
I once looked at a physics syllabus and my first comment was 'Well, most
of the things here are downright wrong'. I don't mean things like
Newtonian mechanics. We all know that's an apporximation, but it's a darn
good approxiamtion for normal-sized ogjects moving at normal speeds, and
I would not call it 'wrong'.
-tony