RMG wrote:
Not really. Why should we be teaching stuff that isn't true? I first learned about Bohrs in the context of it being an obsolete model of the atom, and learned all about how Columbus wiped out the Arawaks and didn't really discover anything. I can't really remember how Newton was handled, but if it's not true then it shouldn't be taught like it is.
Newtonian physics is usually qualified, because enough high school students know that it breaks down at high speeds that physics teachers get annoyed by the little smart-asses pointing it out year after year. In contrast, the circuit model of electricity is almost never qualified, despite the fact that it breaks down even worse than Newton if certain assumptions about the scale of the physical circuit and the wavelength of the current on it don't hold.
Truth doesn't enter into science and it never has. All that matters is accuracy, precision, and the assumptions that you operate under.
The point I think needs to be made is ONLY MATHEMATICIANS DEAL WITH TRUTH. Everyone else, at some point, makes an engineering approximation and applies a set of assumptions. Scientists sit the borderline between mathematics and engineering with respect to falsifiability and proof. Experiments take place in the real world and must be conducted using the best models available. Statistics are gathered and correlations are drawn. Strong correlation and/or agreement with the tested model support the model, which then may be used as an assumption in future experiments.
Statistical correlation is not causation.
Statistical correlation is not proof of anything.
Statistical correlation is a metric that computes the distance between two or more vectors.
As to what gets taught in schools, well ... The subjects are either subjective (history, literature, art), based on an arbitrary system (language, social studies) or incomplete (math, physics, biology) I didn't learn why (-1)<span style="vertical-align:super">0.5</span> = <i>i</i> in High School math, and we didn't cover the latest in quantum physics either. That doesn't make me feel betrayed and cheated ..
I'm not really too sure why evolution gets singled out by fundamentalists so much. I'd think they'd be more concerned with the second law of thermodynamics, since it contradicts rather more of the Bible than just the first page or too....