Why do most people find science boring?

[Schmelzer]

My recommendation - make sure your child places a high value on education, and help him decide how he wants to pursue it.

Would not be really necessary, given that children want to learn.

Of course, given that we live in a world where education is forced education in school, this becomes a problem one has to care about. And it was, naturally, the most serious source of conflict between me and my children. If we would have lived in America, I'm sure we would have started, somehow, homeschooling.

I remember a German reportage about homeschooling - of course, anti-homeschooling propaganda of the worst type, thus, they had choosen some evangelical fundamentalists for this purpose, and, of course, the boy they have presented was, really, a fundamentalist christian. But, nonetheless, he was also an obviously intelligent, educated, and civilized person, much better educated and civilized as the typical boy of this age, so that it would have been really interesting to talk with him.

 

[billvon]

Would not be really necessary, given that children want to learn.

Children want to have fun. If you can make learning fun, often they will want to learn. That is not always possible.

In the US, homeschooled kids who were taught via a structured curriculum - a curriculum with clear educational goals for children with structured lessons in the form of both purchased curricula and self-made lesson plans - tend to do better than public schooled kids. Kids who were taught via unstructured homeschool programs - programs that "identified more with the pedagogical view that education is gained via the natural consequences of the child’s day-to-day activities" - tend to do worse. This is often referred to as "unschooling" and uses as a guiding principle that kids want to learn, and thus the educator's responsibility is just to encourage their curiosity.

http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html

 

[Schmelzer]

Kids who were taught via unstructured homeschool programs - programs that "identified more with the pedagogical view that education is gained via the natural consequences of the child’s day-to-day activities" - tend to do worse. This is often referred to as "unschooling" and uses as a guiding principle that kids want to learn, and thus the educator's responsibility is just to encourage their curiosity.
http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html

Interesting. But note that the result was, in comparison with public school children, not significant. Thus, even the extremal variant of homeschooling, no schooling at al, is not really worse than public schooling.

I would prefer something intermediate - not the version of homeschooling which is similar to a school at home, not complete unschooling, but an environment where the children are free to joint quite traditional lessons, and may be even motivated to join them - only not forced.

 

[Write4U]

billvon,

Schmelzer said: ↑
Submission to the own will is something very different from submission to the will of others.
Click to expand...

Not from the point of view of results. And kids absolutely need that substitute for self-discipline, at least at first. You can't tell them "well, Bobby, you can play on the highway or play in the yard; your choice."

IMO, you can indeed give a child such a choice, but given that playing on the highway is illegal (from still higher authority) to begin with and the dangers posed by traffic, a more informative decision making process (critical thinking) could be achieved by telling the child,
"well, Bobby, playing on the highway is very dangerous AND you may get arrested by the police. But you can also play in the yard. I saw some caterpillars which are about to change into butterflies, shall we have a look at how that happens?", leaving a true choice to the child and the satisfaction of having made his own decision not to play on the highway, but still engaging in an interesting purposeful yard activity.
In later life, he may run across someone telling him, "go play on highway" and know what that really means, as well as the meaning of the concept of "metamorphosis".

As children, many of us learn about the wondrous process by which a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/caterpillar-butterfly-metamorphosis-explainer/

IMO, presenting the parameters and possible consequences of each activity would be much more useful in the long run, than an immediate strictly authoritative response of "No", to the request without any kind of justification or explanation. I guarantee that the child's response to such discipline results in a "pouting child".

 

[Write4U]

Interesting. But note that the result was, in comparison with public school children, not significant. Thus, even the extremal variant of homeschooling, no schooling at al, is not really worse than public schooling.

I would prefer something intermediate - not the version of homeschooling which is similar to a school at home, not complete unschooling, but an environment where the children are free to joint quite traditional lessons, and may be even motivated to join them - only not forced.

I believe the Montessori system is geared to such an approach.

 

[cosmictotem]

I scientist. You not say science boring!

 

[river]

S

I scientist. You not say science boring!

This stupity , video, is not science.

 

[cosmictotem]

S


This stupity , video, is not science.

Did you need to point that out? It's obvious it's not science. It's a joke.

You do understand jokes, right?

 

[MindSearch]

People say is boring because the prepotence of varios scientifics that says it has a explanation (normally an absurd explanation) for the vital questions (what we are, how we are, where we go, etc..) desmotivatig true seekers.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Are you a real person or a broken robot? What the hell are you trying to say?

Never mind, just don't try...

 

[Write4U]

People say is boring because the prepotence of varios scientifics that says it has a explanation (normally an absurd explanation) for the vital questions (what we are, how we are, where we go, etc..) desmotivatig true seekers.

I like cryptograms. Let me try to solve the paragraph and then attempt to answer the proposition.

"People say science is boring because the preponderance of various scientists say that science has an explanation (which is normally an absurd explanation) to the vital question of what we are, how (who) we are, where we go, etc; demotivating the true seeker".

MindSearch, can you give an example of an "absurd explanation"?

IMO, these vital questions are not addressable by the physical sciences. Those questions belong in the field of Philosophy.

philosophy, noun,

1. 
   the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
   a particular system of philosophical thought: "Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
   
   synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoninga theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: 'religion, ethics.
   Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

1. 
   Thus, while a scientist may be very knowledgeable in the field of physics, in truth he/she may be just as curious about the "meaning of life" as any layman.

 

[brucep]

I like cryptograms. Let me try to solve the paragraph and then attempt to answer the proposition.

"People say science is boring because the preponderance of various scientists say that science has an explanation (which is normally an absurd explanation) to the vital question of what we are, how (who) we are, where we go, etc; demotivating the true seeker".

MindSearch, can you give an example of an "absurd explanation"?

IMO, these vital questions are not addressable by the physical sciences. Those questions belong in the field of Philosophy.

1. 
   Thus, while a scientist may be very knowledgeable in the field of physics, in truth he/she may be just as curious about the "meaning of life" as any layman.

That's a dumbass cryptogram. Quit trying to lead the jury.

 

[MindSearch]

Forgive because my English is somewhat limited for discussions but especially I have written quickly and without looking, now I'm using a translator, which more or less I wrote was:

People think science is boring because some scientists say, using a wide arrogance, to have an answer, and usually absurd, to the great questions of life (who we are, how we are, where we're going) ..

And I meant for example to what I most like, which is the whole issue of consciousness and how comes this (can not emerge out of nothing and there are a lot of cellular processes that run too exactly to not have a physical guidance) but there are more issues such as cosmology, where for example, say with great arrogance and advertising that they find footprints of the big bang and later results that they are not http://www.nature.com/news/no-evidence-for-or-against-gravitational-waves-1.15322

For those who have long studied a storyline not want to believe they are wrong, especially if they published papers, and jump on any ideas that would take them the opposite. And this desmotivate some people: me for example.

 

[brucep]

Forgive because my English is somewhat limited for discussions but especially I have written quickly and without looking, now I'm using a translator, which more or less I wrote was:

People think science is boring because some scientists say, using a wide arrogance, to have an answer, and usually absurd, to the great questions of life (who we are, how we are, where we're going) ..

And I meant for example to what I most like, which is the whole issue of consciousness and how comes this (can not emerge out of nothing and there are a lot of cellular processes that run too exactly to not have a physical guidance) but there are more issues such as cosmology, where for example, say with great arrogance and advertising that they find footprints of the big bang and later results that they are not http://www.nature.com/news/no-evidence-for-or-against-gravitational-waves-1.15322

For those who have long studied a storyline not want to believe they are wrong, especially if they published papers, and jump on any ideas that would take them the opposite. And this desmotivate some people: me for example.

With great arrogance according to who? You? According to me you've got way bigger problem than language.

 

[Write4U]

That's a dumbass cryptogram. Quit trying to lead the jury.

The jury on what? English language or the content of the posit? I withold judgement until I understand the question. Now that the question has been explained, it would seem that question is posed by a theist.

My answer would be that consciousness can indeed emerge from physical neural networks such as the human brain, but that a self-ordering universe does not need to be conscious (in the human sense). At best it can be called pseudo intelligent, IMO. Personally I reject the notion of a sentient Creator, because such an proposition would be much more difficult to explain than what the physics tell us.

p.s. I give a rat's ass about the jury. I was interested in what he was attempting to say. Unacceptable to the jury? You may want to reread the OP question and see how your response relates to it.

 

[brucep]

The jury on what? English language or the content of the posit? I withold judgement until I understand the question. Now that the question has been explained, it would seem that question is posed by a theist.

My answer would be that consciousness can indeed emerge from physical neural networks such as the human brain, but that a self-ordering universe does not need to be conscious (in the human sense). At best it can be called pseudo intelligent, IMO. Personally I reject the notion of a sentient Creator, because such an proposition would be much more difficult to explain than what the physics tell us.

p.s. I give a rat's ass about the jury. I was interested in what he was attempting to say. Unacceptable to the jury? You may want to reread the OP question and see how your response relates to it.

No I'm not a theist. Your cryptogram is assumption based on assumption. "People say.... , ..... because the preponderance.... , ..... absurd explanations.... blah, blah, blah. Various scientists ..... one bullshit philosopher.

 

[Write4U]

No I'm not a theist. Your cryptogram is assumption based on assumption. "People say.... , ..... because the preponderance.... , ..... absurd explanations.... blah, blah, blah. Various scientists ..... one bullshit philosopher.

HE (MindSearch) is the theist. Try that, and it will make sense to you.

My answer (to the poorly stated question) was directed at him, so I do hope it made sense to him.

 

[MindSearch]

Write4u thank you for reply with respect, only say that im not theist, only a class of panpsychist, but this theme may go beyond the scope of this post.

It was just to note that there may be certain vital issues that can be approached from, to my most logical, other equally valid scientifically ways. And I personally think that the absence of logic and reductionism (and fascism) of the predominant vision (which put us in TV documentaries), removes the illusion of knowledge to many people. This provoke a thing to be boring.

 

[paddoboy]

People think science is boring because some scientists say, using a wide arrogance, to have an answer, and usually absurd, to the great questions of life (who we are, how we are, where we're going) ..

And I meant for example to what I most like, which is the whole issue of consciousness and how comes this (can not emerge out of nothing and there are a lot of cellular processes that run too exactly to not have a physical guidance) but there are more issues such as cosmology, where for example, say with great arrogance and advertising that they find footprints of the big bang and later results that they are not http://www.nature.com/news/no-evidence-for-or-against-gravitational-waves-1.15322

I don't believe people do find science boring.....people may be indifferent to science, but that's not the same as finding science boring.
Most people know that science is responsible for how we live, and operate today....your computer for example.
And please note, the subject "why people find science boring", was started by the same member that started the most irresponsible, inane and totally wrong thread about science never benefiting mankind ever.
Without science we would not be living the lives most of us live today.

You find scientists as arrogant? Sure, all scientists are human and as such, just as we have arrogant rubbish removalists, just as we have arrogant actors and actresses, just as we have arrogant writers, we also have some arrogant scientists.
Scientists hypothesise, they observe, they experiment, they construct scientific theories based on those observations and experiments.
Do you know what a scientific theory is?
WIKI explains it well........
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim forpredictive power and explanatory capability.[4][5]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation tospecial relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light). Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.
Let me give you now some real examples of arrogance. The many posters we have that post on this science forum, and other science forums, and claim that Einstein is wrong, that SR and GR is wrong, that the BB is wrong, that evolution is wrong, and that they themselves have rewritten 21st century cosmology, and are the only ones privileged to those answers. All this they are able to do without access to the myriad of state of the art scientific equipment we have on Earth, in orbit, or on other planets.
I find politicians as arrogant in the fact that while admitting they maybe scientifically ignorant, at the same time then claim climate change is not real.
Also and on that score, I'm not sure what you do but I find you as arrogant by suggesting all scientists are arrogant.

On your third claim, why do you find the answers scientists and cosmologists give as absurd? Do you believe evolution is absurd? Do you find time dilation as predicted by Einstein's theory as absurd? Do you find the BB model of Universal evolution as absurd? Do you find germs, bacteria, oxygen supporting life, electricity, radio, as absurd?
All the above, are explained and verified by the scientific methodology and align with accepted scientific theory. Some like the BB for example, will in time be modified somewhat, and probably extended on.
So what scientific answer is it that you find absurd? Perhaps that the Universe arose from nothing? Admittedly this is still scientific speculation but so to is the unscientific cause of some magical deity being responsible.

For those who have long studied a storyline not want to believe they are wrong, especially if they published papers, and jump on any ideas that would take them the opposite. And this desmotivate some people: me for example.

That claim maybe true with religious folk, but as I have shown, it is not true with science, or scientific theories. BICEP2 since you raised it, was premature in its claim, but you fail to note that it was also mainstream science that revealed that premature claim as possibly invalid due to contamination.
But the point is experiments are continuing as we speak.
You see that is the name of the game, that is what science is.

 

[river]

People say is boring because the prepotence of varios scientifics that says it has a explanation (normally an absurd explanation) for the vital questions (what we are, how we are, where we go, etc..) desmotivatig true seekers.

Exactly

Hence those that are very young who go on this website are discouraged. They read nothing but viscous attacks on those that do bring a different perspective on the ology(s).