I should have given a reference to support my statement. Here is a website which explains rainbows in some detail. Look at the drawings, and you will see that my description was correct:
Apparently, even the physicists who wrote Science of Discworld can lie.
I’d be more inclined to believe that they were wrong than that they lied. And how do you know the website is right and the authors are wrong? How do you know it isn’t the reverse?
Many posters have explained why a teacher will not tell a student everything about a subject. Indeed, DragonMaci has said he agrees with the principle.
So, I figure he is now questioning the implementation. He’s questioning how a teacher goes about the process of hiding confusing facts from the student. Take the example of “local” vs. “global” variables. The teacher might consider it distracting to even introduce the idea that there may be different types of variables.
When I taught computer classes to high-school kids, I would often state things as facts without giving any indication that there may be exceptions. This is done in specific context: where I was going to reveal the “whole truth” later. I would be like a teacher saying “the vowel A make the <voiced sound> sound”. If I thought it was not confusing, I might hint at “coming attractions”, like a teacher saying “the vowel A usually makes the <voiced sound> sound”. Most contexts don’t require more explicit ruling out of options, as in a teacher who says “the vowel A always makes the <voiced sound> sound”.
“Problem” is, that the kids in a class are not all the same. Some would be confused with too much information; others would have read the book already; they know the teacher isn’t telling the whole truth. Some of these kids would understand that the teacher was slowing down the subject and would be patient. Others would be popping up – hands shooting up like Hermoine in the Potter movies. As a teacher, I hated that. Much as I knew those were the bright and eager kids, I knew that if I ask them what they want to ask they’re going to say something that will confuse the class by introducing a factor that I do not want introduced at that point. It’s part of teaching, and one has to learn how to handle it.
So, going back to the example of a teacher who has decided to start by using the term “variables” to refer to “global variables” and not even mention the existence of “local variables”. Before the class has fully grasped the idea of variables, a bright student asks: “but shouldn’t we be using local variables rather than global variables”? I would probably not reply with: “There are no such things as local variables.” Once the issue is out there, the best way to postpone it is to simply postpone it by saying that you wish to delay talking about it.
Separately, if a particular student was always doing this to my class, I would understand that I have to do something special with that student. First, I would make it very explicit that I know he is bright and eager and ahead of his class. Next, I’d see what I could do to keep him challenged. Finally, I’d explain to him about the type of situations where I want him to keep shut in class and would give him some other avenue where he could ask complicated questions.
Actually I am not questioning the implementation, but rather criticizing the fact that they deliberately tell a lie. I believe that they should simply not explain things rather than lie. That’s how i do it. So far what other posters have said do not mitigate the immorality of the lie as far as I am concerned.
What you done softwareNerd is different. I have no problem with hiding part of the truth if the learners can’t handle the information. Hiding the truth is not usually morally objectionable to me. Especially in mitigating situations like that. All too often teachers lie instead of omitting part of the truth. Omitting part of the truth is acceptable to me. Lying is not.
I was one of those ones that read ahead and knew there was a more. With maths (except areas like trigonometry (is that spelt right?) and calculus, both of which I struggled with) I usually understood the new stuff too. Sometimes I would with other subjects too. I think it’s because I am a good and fast learner. I was usually too shy to raise my hand and raise questions though, even if I didn’t understand what I had read. I was usually too shy to ask questions after class even, when the others weren’t there to be confused.
I definitely prefer your system of delay over lying. That is what I would do. I also like the way that you still found a way to challenge those brighter students.
Your comment on teaching is the most rational one here I think.
(Removed unnecessary quote of previous post and fixed some spellings.- sNerd)
Did your treachers tell you that a table is a flat surface to eat off of or a large collection of atomic matter? Both are correct, but acontextually they are different.
My (high-school only) physics teacher initially explained to me about atoms and sub-atomic particals as if they where solid spheres so I could grasp the basic mechanics of their interactions before heading into more esoteric knowledge.
My highschool chemistry stressed very often that what we were learning about atoms was oversimplified and technically wrong. I dont think anyone in my class could have left school with the idea that electrons really did orbit atoms in the same way planets orbitted the sun. By constrast, our physics teacher never gave us any indication of the problems with Newtonian mechanics. Personally, I think that the first approach is far superior - theres nothing wrong with dumbing things down, but you should make sure people aware that what they are learning is dumbed down. If nothing else, it might make them more curious to find out the true story.
Why lie at akk? They would be better off to tell us nothing. Refracting and reflecting are quite different.
…
And so what if kids can’t understand refraction? Why not just not tell them anything instead of lying?
You have to be taught a simplified/wrong version because at that stage, it just isnt possible to tell people the true story. You cant teach quantum field theory in highschool for instance. Unless you learn the (technically wrong) basics, you wont have the knowledge and experience required to understand the more difficult stuff.
I refuse to accept that a lie is neccessary in order to teach the truth. That is logically inconsistent
So how do you propose we teach physics?
Well I don’t like that. That’s a blatant lie and I don’t think it’s neccessary.
How??? I know (and knew in high school) the Newtonian mechanics and dynamics was ‘wrong’… dosn’t mean that I can’t shoot a model rocket down your chimney with it.
Weither or not you knew what you were told is wrong does not affect weither or not it is a lie.
Here’s what AskOxford has to say about the world “lie”:
• noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.
• verb (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) present a false impression.
— PHRASES give the lie to serve to show that (something assumed to be true) is not true.
And here is what dictionary.com has to say about the word “lie”:
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
Therefore when they say something that is not true and try to pass it as a truth they are lying.