Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button
Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login
Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Education And Knowledge Are Important To Understand The Subject.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alexander on December 11, 2001 00:27:04 UTC

I found a sharp correlation (both on this forum and outside of it ) between the amount of KNOWLEDGE of the subject (=being well educated about it) with the % of correct statement about it, as well as with being able to correctly understand NEW information about the subject.

For example, people from this forum with education in NATURAL sciences (physics, math, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc),- like Richard (yanniru), Mario, Bruce, some others, understand generally well natural laws, interactions of natural objects, what is chemistry, what is life, and many other natural phenomena MUCH MORE ACCURATE than the people WITHOUT education in natural sciences - like carefuluniverse, Luis, Alan, Harvey, etc.

Also, people which already KNOW (by education) how nature works are excellent learners - they CAN UNDERSTAND new facts and concepts about nature. On a side note I also found that people with "natural" education also are logical and "factual" people - they requre facts or relationships to facts to verify/prove anything. And they do not usually strongly claim existence of "something" which can not yet be confirmed by facts.

On the other hand, people with no or little education about nature tend to not understand how nature works (as is seen by the low % of correct statements about nature they make), they confuse important basic concepts about nature, they mix cause and effects, they use logic less or "at will", and they do not rely on facts if the facts contradict their belief. Also, those without "natural" background do not tend to learn new things IF those things contradict their belief.

As a result, many discussions become more like explaining to those who do not know how things work by those who knows. In most cases it is on basic level - thinks people without "natural" education can find in various textbooks. And this takes long time and plenty of useful forum space.

Why when discussing something, not to mention a background you have in the particular area of discussion, say: I have a high school education about the subject, or I have majored college on this subject, or have more formal schooling, or less. As well as any other useful activities if proper - say, work experience as scholar, or engineer, or mechanic, etc.

Because then we will not run into problem like trying to explain someone solution of important differential equation to only discover that he (she) has no basic math education and thus is unable to understand important relationship between the solution and the equation.

I do not want to "pre-screen" anyone, I only want to avoid the situation when someone makes a wrong statement simply NOT KNOWING IMPORTANT BASIC INFORMATION about the subject.

Does this make sense - require that someone making statement to be competent about it?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2025 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins