Innovation does not happen as a result of the scientific education. It happens in spite of it.

The science education is really bad from K-12 to a University degree.

To succeed you have to memorize a bunch of fragments from textbooks to pass tests.

You work really hard, yet you hardly learn anything.

Day number 1 of any, “science class,” should teach students how Science works.

Science works because scientists use the, “The Scientific Method.”

I didn’t learn about the Scientific Method in school.

Like basically everything that I have learned that has been of any value to me I taught to myself.

The Scientific Method: Scientists basically create a hypothesis based on observations. A hypothesis is a testable falsifiable question. Scientists then devise experiments to test predictions based on that hypothesis. Then the results of those experiments are verified by the Scientist’s peers.

Take the eradication of small pox as an example:

A doctor, Dr. Jenner observed that milkmaids did not get small pox. From this observation he created the hypothesis that milkmaids who contracted cowpox were immune from small pox. He then made a prediction based on this hypothesis that people inoculated with cow pox would be immune from small pox. Then he devised an experiment to test this prediction. He inoculated a person with cow pox then exposed them to small pox and the person did not get small pox. The results of Jenner’s experiment were then verified by the Royal Society.

Small Pox used Kill over 400,000 people a year in Europe alone and in 1980 the CDC classified small pox completely eradicated.

That’s how science works and that’s what should be taught in every Science class on day one.

Innovation in Science does not result because of the scientific education. It happens in spite of the scientific education.

 

There have not been any major scientific inventions since Stephen Hawking spewed his ridiculous theories on physics -- a strong indication they are all on the wrong track.

The same thing happened after Aristotle for several centuries.

So history tells us we have been in this boat before.

 

I was taught the scientific method in school. Both my kids have been as well. Maybe you went to a crappy school?

I agree with you that the methodology in requiring memorization is a pretty shitty educational platform. My substantial troubles in math, chemistry, physics came from an inability to memorize formulas accurately for exams, and in history I couldnt remember dates and names. In all cases, I was able to accurately portray the concepts of the subjects when allowed to opt to be examined via essay, but when multiple choice was the only option, I couldnt remember enough of the 'particulars' to pass, and my ability to progress suffered mightily (multiple 'guess' was the standard of my day because teachers didnt have to spend time grading- a machine could do it).

 

It was around forty to fifty years from the time Einstein predict gravity waves and our just detecting them and inventions is the job of engineers not scientists for the most part as in figuring out how to detect something so faint as gravity waves.

 

The work at CERN made major progress in unifying the ideas of Higgs fields from theoretical physics with actual scientific method using the largest machine ever built by humans.

 

So it's your assertion that if the Dr. Had completely skipped all of the years of course work in science that led up to his Doctorate, that he would have been able to pull his theory on Small Pox from his ass?

*Puts chin on hands in a listening posture*. Do tell ...

 

Determination that neutrinos have mass was important in verifying ideas on cosmology.

This idea that we're on the "wrong track" can not be justified.

If your argument had been that it is getting harder and/or more expensive to be on the forefront of physics you might have an argument.

 

When you get right down to it... there have been no significant scientific discoveries after Aristotle

 

Often breakthroughs are not the result of education but of chance and diligence.

Education has its place but does not guarantee success. Often the right education offers position and the ability to obtain grants but does not ensure intelligence.

 

I was going to like this, but the catch is that physics pretty much always requires designing equipment.

So, CERN was the largest and most complex machine ever created by mankind.

Does that mean that proofs related to Higgs fields are an engineering feat?

I certainly do not believe so. The engineers can be praised to high heaven, but they don't get credit for the physics.

The same goes for LIGO.

 

Wow!

Now that is just plain crazy nonsense!

 

There is way too much nonsense in this statement.

But let's ignore that and go on to ...

... even if one agrees with your proposition, what the !@&#(*!&@ could it possibly mean in terms of how we proceed???

 

You offer no rebuttal other than a collection of ascii characters so will be ignored.

 

I asked you a question.

I said, assuming you were correct in your statement, how should we proceed with that?

What does it mean we should do about post high school education?

What does it mean we should do about high school science education?

 

Like I said, education is important. Specifically a liberal education and I don’t mean the current neo-liberal indoctrination against free speech.

 

I think I understand what you're saying and can agree with that.

It's true that education doesn't guarantee success. But, that is not a reason to back off of education.

I'll add that I like the idea that post high school vocational education should be added for those not interested in college, but who want/need skills that will prepare them for jobs that pay well.

 

Because anyone with a high school diploma and who stayed in a Holiday Inn last night can plot intercept course for landing a probe on an asteroid hurtling through space. Any Joe with a liberal arts education could have come up with the MRI.

Anyone who thinks there haven't been any scientific breakthroughs in the last 50 years hasn't had a kid who survived cancer.

 

Amen. The list at that level goes on and on and on.

It's hard to believe how much our lives and even our culture have changed over the last 20 years as a result of scientific discovery and engineering hitting the market.

 

It's interesting to me that all these atomic particles were first conceived by Researchers doing equations using nothing no more technologically advanced than a pencil and paper but were found using some of the most technologically advanced pieces of scientific equipment ever created, particle colliders.

 

There are too many technicians in science where there should be creators because the scientific education today selects for technicians.

Technicians are satisfied working really hard for years without ever really using what they learned.

If a creator makes it through the scientific education and creates something, it's not a result of their education.

It's in spite of their education.

 

Absolutely! I find that fascinating.

I think that's going to continue to be the case, as it's so important for experimentalists to know exactly where and how to look. They can't build more stuff like the CERN facility without having some very well developed objectives.

 

Well there is the example of the completely self taught Edison who once stated that if he would find that he needed PHD mathematicians he would hired them but no mathematician could hired an hour of his time.

Next as far as plotting orbits I can remember with only my electrical engineering background creating a solar system orbits calculator program for my TI99a home computer.

It was way way way too slow to be useful beyond being fun to watch as it display orbits changes between planets with models of low thrust ion or solar sails space probes.

Wish I still have the program listing so I could run it on my current computers that are a few tens of thousands time faster then my old TI99 computer.

Oh beside Edison there was the owner of my former company who without any advance formal education created a billion dollars private medical device firm.

He to was a self taught engineer who universities decided to give him honorary degrees late in his life but I am not sure if he had a HS degree.

Then we have apple co-founder Steve Wozniak who was also was a self taught engineer who after he had done the engineering for the apple 2 and was already a millionaire he enter college to get his engineering degree under an assume name as he was already too well known to do so under his real name.

 

Sorry - but that's like saying that you can hand a gorilla a basketball and 3 times out of 100 he will hit the basket ... so we should sign him up for the NBA.

 

So you are saying that anyone who can do advance work in any field without a college degree or formal education by being self taught is a gorilla and is achieving their results due to random chance ?????

The wright brothers who design the first successful heavier then air flying machine where a government funded PhD holder and the head of the Smithsonian fail with his plane ending in the Potomac river by random chance???????

That the brothers who taught themselves fairly advance mathematic to for one thing design their props to do an outstanding job of coupling the plane engine power to the air.

That is beside designing the first wind tunnel to check their and others mathematic works against the real world.

 

The OP attempts to create causation between his education and innovation. It is a failure at best and potentially damaging at worse. A good school addresses scientific method and introduces students to the major scientific discoveries and generally accepted laws/theories. Applied science usually has the innovators, which has little to do with methods and every thing to do with creativity.