4 Jul
2012
4 Jul
'12
1:05 p.m.
On 07/04/2012 06:12 AM, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
Sure, that makes sense. But in this case, the information wasn't just
incomplete, it was DEAD WRONG. The imparted knowledge won't have to be
amended later, it will have to be un-learned. That's a big difference!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
.. I overheard
two teenage girls examining each other on tech history.
Girl A : "The first PC was ....?"
Girl B : "...the Macintosh !"
Girl A, looking in her textbook : "Correct !"
I just wanted to say.... I won't consider this as a big problem we realy
need to start worrying about education! Why? The shool will always(!)
simplify things to teach them to children. This has beend the case and
always was the case. If you talk to higher educated people what they
think is right what is being teached from their area of knownledge in
the school (e.g. chemistry). you'll always here "this is wrong what they
teach!" but this is the case. Children should not care about every
detail for everything. This is what later education is for where you
specialise for an area... everything before is "a little bit true, but
not the full truth". I can give you examples of how children are being
teached on how sulfuric acid is being produced but what they are being
teached will _never_ work.... you can't load them with 1000000 details
of 100000 areas of science.