It’s kind of a fun idea, but as everyone has pointed out: every school is different, even of there is some centralized board of education, some times teachers just say dumb shit.
Also, when does a fact become a fact? Like, dinosaurs had feathers. It was theorized, then debated, then clarified, and now there are some reasonable consensus about it, but theropauds probably still aren’t presented as having feathers in some books. And what teachers know this?
Or you get common misconceptions that were never facts. Like you only use 10% of your brain. I don’t think science ever said that, but man the idea is/was really common.
There are also plenty of things in science that are taught that are technically incorrect, but give you a working model that you can build on later. The atomic model being a rather typical example.
That’s fair: abstraction. The technical wrongness of “orbiting electrons” as in the whichever-model serves a purpose: the truth is hairy, and more importantly not practically relevant if you’re calculating sliding boxes around planes and that sort of thing.
On the other hand, “10% of the brain” and similar nuggets of common “wisdom” are just flat-out wrong, often stupidly so. There’s very little use in that.
It’s kind of a fun idea, but as everyone has pointed out: every school is different, even of there is some centralized board of education, some times teachers just say dumb shit.
Also, when does a fact become a fact? Like, dinosaurs had feathers. It was theorized, then debated, then clarified, and now there are some reasonable consensus about it, but theropauds probably still aren’t presented as having feathers in some books. And what teachers know this?
Or you get common misconceptions that were never facts. Like you only use 10% of your brain. I don’t think science ever said that, but man the idea is/was really common.
There are also plenty of things in science that are taught that are technically incorrect, but give you a working model that you can build on later. The atomic model being a rather typical example.
That’s fair: abstraction. The technical wrongness of “orbiting electrons” as in the whichever-model serves a purpose: the truth is hairy, and more importantly not practically relevant if you’re calculating sliding boxes around planes and that sort of thing.
On the other hand, “10% of the brain” and similar nuggets of common “wisdom” are just flat-out wrong, often stupidly so. There’s very little use in that.
Oh. Yeah. That’s a good point. When I taught a dead language, I would tell my students that all grammars lie to you, but some of the lies are useful.
The Wittgensteinian Ladder. The pedagogical expedient misinformation.