SoylentNews

HughPickens.com [hughpickens.com] writes:

In the mid-1980s, a University of Arizona surgery professor, Marlys H. Witte, proposed teaching a class entitled “Introduction to Medical and Other Ignorance" because far too often, she believed, teachers fail to emphasize how much about a given topic is unknown [nytimes.com]. "Textbooks spend 8 to 10 pages on pancreatic cancer,” said Witte, “without ever telling the student that we just don’t know very much about it.” Now Jamie Holmes writes in the NYT that many scientific facts simply aren’t solid and immutable, but are instead destined to be vigorously challenged and revised by successive generations. According to Homes, presenting ignorance as less extensive than it is, knowledge as more solid and more stable, and discovery as neater also leads students to misunderstand the interplay between answers and questions.

In 2006, a Columbia University neuroscientist, Stuart J. Firestein, began teaching a course on scientific ignorance [columbia.edu] after realizing, to his horror, that many of his students might have believed that we understand nearly everything about the brain. "This crucial element in science was being left out for the students," says Firestein."The undone part of science that gets us into the lab early and keeps us there late, the thing that “turns your crank,” the very driving force of science, the exhilaration of the unknown, all this is missing from our classrooms. In short, we are failing to teach the ignorance, the most critical part of the whole operation." The time has come to “view ignorance as ‘regular’ rather than deviant,” [sociologyofignorance.com] argue sociologists Matthias Gross and Linsey McGoey. Our students will be more curious — and more intelligently so — if, in addition to facts, they were equipped with theories of ignorance as well as theories of knowledge.

---

Original Submission