Added: 4 years ago
From: keuriseudo
Views: 15,866
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (57)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

    Richard P. Feynman

  • People of reason, join the ZEITGEIST movement,

    Just youtube it :)

    Peace

  • 'we mustn't teach something> suppression > intolerance > something to be afraid of' - just a minor example of why Richard Dawkins is one of the truly great thinkers of our time.

  • Comment removed

  • the problem with science in schools is science teachers are really very very boring

  • i thought "the five finger exercise" was called fisting.

  • Teaching kids about quantum theory is actually very affective, due to its aspects of being very, for lack of a better word, crazy and bizarre. I mean the way energy is transferred in conservative pathways, forces acting like little vectors, in a particle accelerator could be taught to children even with very simple mathematical tools; Feynman diagrams are derived from Fourier analysis combined with vector calculus(among other things,e.g Dirac theory also) but can be represented by drawings!

  • @SpecterReflector....If you think you know quantum theory...you don't know quantum theory!!!

  • don't worry bud, the chinese and indians will carry the flag for the yanks and brits. go third world ;)

  • SCIENCE, at it's best.

  • richard dawkings for president of the world

  • lol good call

  • i second it, brother.

  • i'm on your side , if all people could think like him the world will be well trasform .

  • I cannot agree more

  • Richard Dawkins rules! Go Science!!!

  • Dawkins , one of the smartest guy .

  • thank god for richard dawkins....oops.

  • ha.....

  • hehe

  • lmao Freudian Slip

  • @newtonslogic Thank "Goodness" as Dennett would say....

  • ever noticed that Dawkin blinks a lot ?

  • Especially when he's angry.

  • @christe68 hahaha! I noticed that! When he's listening to a stupid person (and is getting angry) his blinking goes into overdrive!!!

  • science is even more enthralling than sc-fi because it is real and its tangible and spectacular and the search for truth is wonderous

  • True that, I've always loved the BattleTech universe for sci-fi. All the planets and economies and cultures and everything...

    But it will never compare to our own universe. Not even close.

  • agreed

  • @xxiloveitallxx not to mention that sci-fi have a way of not staying fantasy for long thank to science :D

  • I think the problem is that Physics and Biology can both be very interesting, but A-Level Physics taught in school seems to teach the most boring aspects, such as circuitry, electricity and diffractions of waves. Where are the black holes? The fourth dimensions? Theories of time travel? The interesting stuff? This is what is needed to get more people interested in science.

  • I know we know little about black holes and stuff, but its still interesting to learn the theories behind the phenomenons we sometimes know so little about. Exploring the uncharted is the interesting stuff! SCHOOL TRIPS TO CERN!

  • Why not learn about those?

    Simple: because you wouldn't understand!

    Sure you can talk in "pictures" and pop. science but with classical themes you can bring students to the point where thain can make calculations and even crasp the ideas to a certain point - both would be impossible with SRT, ART and QM.

  • Basic Quantum Mechanics is taught at A2-Level, such as Einstein's Photoelectric effect. As is the Big Bang (Using Hubble's law and Doppler effect to show that the universe is expanding, and therefore may have expanded from a singularity).

    At A-Level, further maths touches on some of the more complex theories behind mathematics that the core mathematics don't. Perhaps this could be implemented into physics? Further physics certainly would be very interesting...

  • im studying physics now and i wish there was a further physics course, something between A Level and degree would be super :)

  • 'Should the UK give up on science?' I can honestly say that, as a citizen of the UK, no other question frightens me more. I did Double Award Science at GCSE, and Physics was my favourite subject.  Biology and Chemistry were also cool. Thank fuck for Science!

  • The Cult of the bunsen burner? whatever you say.

  • gravity is a law now.

  • Not now, and not in ten years. It's a theory.

    The misunderstanding is in saying that "theory" is something we "think" is true but don't really know for sure.

    A scientific theory is a couple of things we know that can help us predict how things we don't really know for sure will work, if the predictions work we keep the theory for a lil while longer, til the predictions don't work anymore and then we create a new one.

    In short a Theory is something that can be tested and proven wrong.

  • It could not be a theory in 10 years. It could be proven. Depends what happens with the LHC and whether it can find the "God" particle. That will help us to understand how mass works, and help us prove the force of gravity.

  • false - the LHC will maybe find the Higgs-Boson but neither is it a "god"-particle nor will it prove our view of the world - it will just give more encouragment in favor of our current view.

    BUT most scientist expect the LHC to produce many new particles that will utterly destroy our standard modell of QM and so might lead to a new/improved one.

  • I said it may help us to prove gravity. And "God" was in quotes. I know this us just the public/media name for the Higgs Boson. I also know what I wrote did not show much clarity.

    I also agree with your second statement. Anything could happen. I just said may. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. My understanding:

    Hypothesis:

    Prediction of an event, based on reasoning etc.

    Theory:

    A tested hypothesis backed by empirical evidence, though not proven.

    (See cazu36)

    Law:

    Proven in its entirety.

  • oh Ricky D. this is the only topic on which we disagree (slightly).

    It's important to BALANCE a hands on approach with theory - aknowledging the different learning styles of individuals in the classroom.

    I loved learning the science theory at school - but my god I loved the toad and rat disections in Biology and the crazy experiments in chemistry.

    science needs to be interesting. Little kids especially are captivated by experiments- it prompts them to ask questions about the world.

  • "I loved learning the science theory at school - but my god I loved the toad and rat disections in Biology and the crazy experiments in chemistry."

    That's exactly what I hated about science in school. All the practical demonstrations that we were dragged through, and I never felt a part of. What eventually captured my attention was the thought experiments and the application of mathematics to them. Particularly sound wave propagation.

  • Textra1,

    I was the same. The main thing that put me off in chemistry class was that we had cruddy equipment to work with. We had to be within a certain percentage of error or we would have points taken off even if we could identify the source of the error in a lab report. This meant that there was a race for who could get the best equipment before a lab.

  • i see what you guys are saying..

    but..

    i think that it is so IMPORTANT for ALL KIDS (whether they are scientifically minded or not) to get a meaningful access to science-

    If we can engage them and get them to see the world through a rational lens, then perhaps we won't have so many loonies supporting ID or stupid people believing in horoscopes and ghosts.

    Not everyone can embrace a formula, and not everyone will enjoy an experiment - but if we provide both we reach a wider audience.

  • "Should the UK give up on science altogether?"

    It is difficult to grasp the absolute stupidity of that question, especially given the person that she is talking to. Painful.

  • 'cult of the bunsen burner'

    to right, science education was boring in the early years of secondary education which put me off persuing a further study of the sciences for college.

  • i would agree too.

    i think what kept me from entering the science stream in high school was not only due to my bad results, but the monotonous pace science lessons have always been going. Looking back, I think there needs to be some changes in the curriculum, in the teaching methods, and the teachers.

  • I grew up in New York City in the 70s and 80s, and the tedium and focus on standardized tests made me, a child who had always loved science, despise the subject just at the age where I might otherwise have pursued the subject as a career. I'm back to loving it, but too late for anything but a layman's enjoyment.

    Standardized testing doesn't work!

  • It's never too late to change career paths. If you love science so, pursue one of its disciplines as a career now.

  • No, No, No! It's truely is never to late to study at a higher level! When I did my BSC in Biology at 18, about 70% of my fellow students were mature students! Does the US have the equivalent of the Open University?

  • This guy will transcend in history. i say this for real.

  • Very nice. Thanks

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more