On 31 Aug 2008, at 19:13, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > Dan M wrote: >> I wouldn't put it that way, because there are a wealth of possible >> future >> tests. And theories that have been falsified are still taught in >> science >> class...in fact most physics that is being taught has been >> falsified....but >> survives as special cases of the new theory. >> > But in that case we don't present it as true, exactly. For example, > Newton's Laws of Motion are now presented as acceptable > approximations. > Nothing wrong with that, it is easier to do the calculations that way > than to use General Relativity to calculate orbits, for instance. >>
I was taught that 22/7 was a handy approximation for pi but I wasn't taught that it was pi. And I was taught the Bohr model of the atom in high school chemistry along with the explanation that it was a perfectly good model for high-school chemistry although superseded. > In a class that is about how science develops, that could well make > sense. I taught a class some years ago on History of Science, and that > is something I tried to bring into it. But I would (and did) insist > that > we look at this process in terms of how science makes these judgments, > and that is by making falsifiable hypotheses and testable predictions, > and then doing the test. If we don't do that, I don't think we are > doing > science. If schools are to teach history of science as well as science then some other less useful subject has to be cancelled. I vote for PE/ Gym :-) Not a subject Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
