November Letters (Physics Today):

Teaching, Propaganda, and the Middle Ground

Is it true that teaching introductory modern physics is primarily
propaganda? The Opinion by Mano Singham (Physics Today, June, page 54)
takes the dictionary definition of the word, broadens it to include a
system of data and deductions, and then uses it in its pejorative sense.
His argument falls into philosophical relativism, which unfortunately
seems to have become doctrine in the politically correct world in which
any opinion has the same value as any other opinion. It seems to me--a
quantum (and philosophical) realist--that informed opinion is more
valuable than uninformed, and experiment-based systems are more valuable
than belief-based ones.

Doug, Singham's student who still didn't believe in relativity, may or may
not have a problem. If he is saying that he is not sure whether general
relativity is the whole, precise answer (to some question), that is the
critical thinking Singham is aiming for. If he does not believe that time
dilation occurs, one is reminded of a response attributed to Richard
Feynman. When a grad student said he "really didn't believe in quantum
interference," Feynman told him to go do the experiments until he believed
it!

It is not logical to leap from unquestioning acceptance of all experts to
the dubious virtue of always challenging authority and taking unpopular
views. Since the 1960s, it has seemed fashionable to assume authority
wrong because it is authority, and to feel that, if someone is not
precisely correct in some particular, all his or her statements are
self-serving lies. Unfortunately, blindly rejecting authority can lead to
the same types of problems as blindly following it. Challenging proof,
demanding understandable explanations (while pursuing knowledge to further
understanding), and rigorously analyzing arguments are the stuff of
intellectual curiosity and progress. Refusing to believe when you don't
know any more than the other person seems to me to be oppositional rather
than intellectual.

The Kansas State Board of Education, creationists in general, and Jamal
(as described by Singham) are not particularly shining examples of
critical thinking, careful weighing of evidence, intellectual curiosity,
and rejection of intellectual coercion.

W. C. Morrey
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton

POWRÓT