Alchemy is often taken to be synonymous with bad science and it is true, most of the science associated with alchemy was bad. Sometimes they got lucky and uncovered a truth, but most of the time the reasoning was flawed, or the experiment was flawed, or both were flawed. Why was this? Because the goal of alchemy was never science to begin with. It was to find the philosopher's stone. To turn lead into gold. The goal of science though is to understand nature just for the sake of understanding nature. If the truth is that you can't turn lead into gold and you understand that truth, and better yet, why that is true, then that is good science, but bad alchemy.
The goal of most education research is to make students smarter. This is not a scientific goal. This is why education research results in so much bad science. You can't do "science" when you have an ulterior motive.
Rule: Whenever you read a paper that claims to be science but the goal is not science then the paper is not science.
The bottom line is this. If a paper is trying to support a philosopher's stone then it isn't science. It is alchemy and alchemy is not science. Science works in the opposite direction of alchemy. First you understand, with some degree of detail, what makes some students smart and some not and then you understand if it is possible or not to change students. And the goal is that understanding alone. Nothing else.
I think education would serve students better by focusing on what they each do best.
On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The monkey sense is important? > > Try this instead... > > "Math smart kids show their gift early, even with primitive tasks like comparing quantities and counting." > > "Music smart kids show their gift early, even with primitive tasks, like clapping and singing." > > "Sports smart kids show their gift early, even with primitive tasks, like running and catching." > > The list goes on. > > Even you, especially you, must see the fallacy of making monkey-sense "important" in all this. > > The key to these things isn't primitive senses. It's the gift, which is much bigger than those primitive tasks. > > Now, when you read this, you might (if you are lucky) think "Yeah, that is be a much simpler explanation. How come that isn't what is being written?" > > The answer to this is that the "science" of your noble profession is so infected and rotten with politics, it isn't even rational anymore. > > Bob Hansen > > > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Louis Talman <email@example.com> wrote: > >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022170828.htm >> >> >> - --Louis A. Talman >> Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences >> Metropolitan State University of Denver >> >> <http://rowdy.msudenver.edu/~talmanl>