We need to see the world anew. —Albert Einstein
Knowledge
empowers.
that form the basis of our predictions of
future climates, for example, contain
literally hundreds of different factors that
have to be accounted for.
For example, in a warming world,
there might be less sea ice; sea ice
reflects sunlight whereas water absorbs
the light. Models have to deal with both
the change in ice and the change in
energy balance. Add in man-made and
natural aerosol particles (which reflect
sunlight); changes in vegetation (plants
absorb light whereas bare ground
Scientific knowledge
becomes a kind of
entry ticket into the
wider debate.
reflects it); and cloud formation (high
clouds reflect sunlight whereas low
clouds trap heat)—and you can see the
complexity. Because of this, I suspect
that no single individual on the planet
really understands everything that goes
into these models.
Despite this, students are going to
have to tackle policy issues that arise
from the output of these computer
models. In the same way, they will have
to deal with the scientific complexity of
other issues and the questions that arise.
For example, is the depository at Yucca
Mountain an appropriate place to put
nuclear waste? If we use alternate energy
generators, such as windmills, how
many birds will these windmills kill?
Is there anything in the current education system that will prepare students to
make judgments about this new kind of
science? I don’t see it. Certainly the standard cookbook experiments so beloved
of advocates of teaching the scientific
method aren’t going to help. Given the
glacial pace at which major curriculum
changes are made in our current system,
it’s not too early for us to start thinking
about how we’re going to integrate this
aspect of the modern, computer-dominated world into science classrooms.
It would be helpful, for example, to
have computer labs in which students
make different assumptions about a
process like cloud formation, which is
highly uncertain from a science point of
view. Students could then observe how
their choices affect the computer predictions that result from the set of assumptions that they plugged in. If nothing
else, such exercises would rid students
forever of the naive belief that if something comes from a computer, it must be
true.
So what will the science education of
the future look like? It will start, as it
must, with introducing students to the
basic laws that govern the universe.
Instead of presenting these laws in a
compartmentalized way—divided into
physics, chemistry, and biology—
teachers would get across the notion that
nature presents itself to us in a seamless
web, without artificial labels. A student
in a physics class might study the transmission of nerve signals as well as the
laws governing electrical circuits; a
student in biology might learn about the
process of energy flow while studying
ecosystems.
It’s time to roll up our sleeves and get
to work!
Authors’ note: For a longer treatment of
this topic, see James Trefil’s latest book, Why
Science? (Teachers College Press & National
Science Teachers Association Press, 2008).
EL
James Trefil is the Clarence J. Robinson
Professor of Physics at George Mason
University, Fairfax, Virginia; jtrefil@gmu
.edu. Wanda O’Brien-Trefil teaches 8th
grade English at Thomas Pyle Middle
School in Bethesda, Maryland.
978-0-470-38248-6
978-0-470-44214-2
978-0-470-47538-6
978-0-470-46130-3
Available from your favorite vendor or
www.josseybass.com/go/leadership