|
|
Re: Research-based Standards: Learning from Physics Teachers
Posted:
Jul 26, 2010 6:45 PM
|
|
|
|
RE: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com>wrote:
The whole idea of "life science" versus "not life science" bespeaks of some
superstitious vitalism left over from the dark ages, when people had little
appreciation for the complete interconnectedness of all the sciences.
I concur. I would also extend the statement to include the
interconnectedness of various disciplines in general.
I am midway through a very fascinating book that is teaching me how the
structure and functionality of protein networks are being used in Artificial
Intelligence modeling. The book is titled, "Wetware: a Computer in Every
Living Cell" and is by Dennis Bray. Jeremy Gunawardena, director. Virtual
Cell Program of Harvard Medical School makes this comment, "Dennis Bray
engages in a provocative debate about the computational capabilities of
protein networks while taking the reader on a delightful ramble across
biology, from the antics of Stentor to the plasticity of synapses, with
Pacman and salamanders along the way." Would you consider this type of
study "life science" or "not life science?" And does it really matter what
it is labeled?
Also, to make a point in favor of including both introductory level and more
rigorous courses in school programs, is that if I had not taken Anatomy and
Physiology in college and also been interested in artificial intelligence
with a goal of learning more about how our brains learn, then, I probably
would not even given the book a second look. I think my students are the
same. If they have not been introduced to a particular area of study, how
could they possibly even know whether they are curious enough to go deeper
and explore the area more fully?
I'll leave it to cultural anthropologists and historians to dissect
academia's endlessly shifting kaleidoscope of "what's a what".
I know there's a need to specialize, for the sake of sorting and
pigeon-holing, but lets not mistake our bureaucratic
divisions for actual "departments" in nature, as if she had any.
Geometry and Geography are all you really need, as everything else
might be classified as one or the other.
I agree - let us as educators, just continue doing the good work and not get
distracted with labels that may or may not mean anything, depending on the
objectivity or hidden agendas of the person(s) doing the labeling. That is
not to mean we do our good work without collaboration - just that we might
consider limiting the fights over "what is this" and "what is that. " It
just might be a waste of time in some circumstances.
Anna
|
|
