今天在美国《科学》杂志上读到一篇文章,标题是 Learning and scientific reasoning (学习和科学推理)。作者包垒 (Lei Bao) 等人比较了中美两国的中学生在物理课测验中的表现,发现一个有趣的现象:单独考试力学或电磁学,中国学生都大大地好过美国学生,但如果综合考察学生的科学推理能力,两国学生的表现几乎毫无二致。
作者说,在中国,为了应付高中毕业时的大学入学考试,所有的十二年制中小学教育的各个学科都贯彻全国统一标准。例如物理课,从八年级开始到十二年级,所有的学生都必须上连续五年的物理课。课程的设计包括基本概念和解答问题的能力训练。相比之下,美国的中学生只有约三分之一左右选修两年物理课。
作者对两国的普通大学一年级新生进行了力学和电磁学测验。测验最高分是30分,最低0分。力学测验中,美国学生得分集中在12分左右,中国学生得分集中在27分左右。电磁学测验中,美国学生得分集中在8分左右,中国学生集中在20到24之间。中国学生在这两门考试中的成绩都远远超过美国学生。
然而,当作者对两国学生进行科学推理测验时,却发现中国学生和美国学生没有区别。在0-30分范围内,两国学生的得分都集中在20分左右,其他分数段的成绩分布也几乎完全一致。科学推理测验使用的是标准的Lawson课堂科学推理测验。这个测验主要考察学生面对科学问题时的推理能力,并不强调物理学的数学公式和计算方法。例如:用粘土做成两个一样大小的圆球,现在把其中一个压扁,问两个球是否仍然一样重,为什么。
相比之下,中国学生全体用五年时间学习物理学,美国只有三分之一的学生学习两年。中国学生花费的总时间是美国学生的7.5倍,得到的总体结果却是一样的。这在人力物力资源上造成的浪费不可谓不巨大。
再说,并不是所有的中学生都需要学习物理学。很多孩子的兴趣在于文学、艺术、历史,可他们被迫学习物理学,生命被无谓地浪费了。要是有个什么测验可以测一测中美两国学生在人文学科方面的学识与能力,恐怕结果也会很有启发意义。
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
我被逼学了两年,现在连最基本的都忘了,只记得老师的惩罚:) - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
有意思的发现。说实话,就是美国学生的数理化份量也还可以减少。假如我们不做科技方面的工作,中学花那么多宝贵时间学数理化都是浪费。我觉得成人后很少用高中学的那些东西。不如用那些时间多学人文艺术语言或其他更有用的东西。或者科学中更general的一些学科。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
玛雅 wrote:
我被逼学了两年,现在连最基本的都忘了,只记得老师的惩罚:)
我最讨厌物理,但却花了不计其数的时间苦苦学习,光是力学,就有经典力学、结构力学、弹性力学、量子力学。中国搞文理分科,浪费生命,有那些时间读点自己喜欢的书多好!可是每周四十个学时,仅有的时间用来做题都不够。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
上学主要是为了通过思考和练习来培养脑子的思维能力,而学习具体的知识并不是最
主要的目的。例如数学,主要是起脑子体操的作用。那些说话(包括帖子)下气不接
上气语无伦次的,一般是因为上学时未学好数学。那样的人想费脑子的事(例如需要
推理)时大概一般都感觉头疼得要命,所以他们就不想那种事了, 就废了。而受过
好的数学训练的,一般干什么都轻松,包括写帖子。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
一个人的心智活动中一个最基本的活动是搜索探求因果关系。数学就是研究因果关系
的。通过学习数学,那种因果关系的思维就固定在脑子里了。“Nothing comes from
nothing. Nothing ever could.”
一个人最基本的生活技能是什么?是 think straight. 但不是所有人都有那种基本
生活技能的。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
天,还有人讨厌物理?不可思议 :-)我最喜欢物理。
Joey wrote:
我最讨厌物理,但却花了不计其数的时间苦苦学习,光是力学,就有经典力学、结构力学、弹性力学、量子力学。中国搞文理分科,浪费生命,有那些时间读点自己喜欢的书多好!可是每周四十个学时,仅有的时间用来做题都不够。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
嗯,有先知的味道 :-)
Chater85 wrote:
上学主要是为了通过思考和练习来培养脑子的思维能力,而学习具体的知识并不是最
主要的目的。例如数学,主要是起脑子体操的作用。那些说话(包括帖子)下气不接
上气语无伦次的,一般是因为上学时未学好数学。那样的人想费脑子的事(例如需要
推理)时大概一般都感觉头疼得要命,所以他们就不想那种事了, 就废了。而受过
好的数学训练的,一般干什么都轻松,包括写帖子。 - posted on 02/03/2009
这两帖都基本同意。数学和科学的训练让人尊重证据和事实,倚仗理性和逻辑。具体的知识可以很快学到,而思维方式则是长期训练的结果。
Chater85 wrote:
上学主要是为了通过思考和练习来培养脑子的思维能力,而学习具体的知识并不是最
主要的目的。例如数学,主要是起脑子体操的作用。那些说话(包括帖子)下气不接
上气语无伦次的,一般是因为上学时未学好数学。那样的人想费脑子的事(例如需要
推理)时大概一般都感觉头疼得要命,所以他们就不想那种事了, 就废了。而受过
好的数学训练的,一般干什么都轻松,包括写帖子。
一个人的心智活动中一个最基本的活动是搜索探求因果关系。数学就是研究因果关系
的。通过学习数学,那种因果关系的思维就固定在脑子里了。“Nothing comes from
nothing. Nothing ever could.”
一个人最基本的生活技能是什么?是 think straight. 但不是所有人都有那种基本
生活技能的。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
Ruozhi wrote:
有意思的发现。说实话,就是美国学生的数理化份量也还可以减少。假如我们不做科技方面的工作,中学花那么多宝贵时间学数理化都是浪费。我觉得成人后很少用高中学的那些东西。不如用那些时间多学人文艺术语言或其他更有用的东西。或者科学中更general的一些学科。
我现在后悔没多学数理化,尤其是数学。
当自己真正面对需要解决的实际社会问题时,会发现科学知识多么可贵,也会发现无知多么地可怕。但现在懒了,也不想多动脑学习了,无知就无知吧。
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
逻辑推理能力并不只有数理课上才能学到,尤其只是强调题海战术、填鸭方式的教学。
其实数理的推证,相对更容易,因为概念定义准确,如果万物简化到0和1,连人脑都不需要了:))
- posted on 02/03/2009
国师/先知的出发点可疑,但结论正确,我单手表决同意:))
此线开头很好,但相关讨论有贬低文科同学的苗头,望大家提高警惕。
Chater85 wrote:
上学主要是为了通过思考和练习来培养脑子的思维能力,而学习具体的知识并不是最
主要的目的。例如数学,主要是起脑子体操的作用。那些说话(包括帖子)下气不接
上气语无伦次的,一般是因为上学时未学好数学。那样的人想费脑子的事(例如需要
推理)时大概一般都感觉头疼得要命,所以他们就不想那种事了, 就废了。而受过
好的数学训练的,一般干什么都轻松,包括写帖子。 - posted on 02/03/2009
July wrote:
天,还有人讨厌物理?不可思议 :-)我最喜欢物理。
萝卜青菜嘛。我大学唯一补考过的就是物理和化学,可惜我们专业最重要的就是物理化学,自然我的成绩是一塌糊涂。喜欢的专业是工业设计,第一个认识的女生就是这个专业的。
我觉得中国教育真的浪费了我很多时间。比如考研究生,背政治题,整整一本书的复习题阿,标准答案全得背下来。我也不喜欢那个专业,但在国内那时候没法跳槽,像嫁错人一样委屈了十年不止。过来美国之后才得以换了一个喜欢的专业(电脑),在这点上我很感激美国。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
Allow me to do a little test here. :-)
(Caution: Brain Damage May Result If Think Too Hard!)
The following is a typical question in Lawson's test:
The results show that the mealworms respond to (respond means moved toward or away from):
a. light but not moisture
b. moisture but not light.
c. both light and moisture.
d. neither light nor moisture.
Please explain your choice. - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
Or maybe 阿珊 can help design a little game so that people can do the above test anonymously? Many thanks. - posted on 02/03/2009
呵呵,这题太幼儿园了吧,能分出中学水平?
中国的中学教育(至少教材)相对更一刀切。美国的更多层次些。同一所中学同一个年级,有的孩子已经在上大学数理教材了,有些还在折腾四则运算简单代数。好听点讲,美国更讲究因人施教吧。N年前一本土Postdoc同事就说:俺们美国的制度下,普遍水平差些,但是天才也不会被埋没。
明摆的是,如果美国教育水平普遍很高,那咱们多半恐怕早就不得不海龟了。也许当初人就不让过来。
八十一子 wrote:
Allow me to do a little test here. :-)
(Caution: Brain Damage May Result If Think Too Hard!)
The following is a typical question in Lawson's test:
The results show that the mealworms respond to (respond means moved toward or away from):
a. light but not moisture
b. moisture but not light.
c. both light and moisture.
d. neither light nor moisture.
Please explain your choice. - posted on 02/03/2009
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
81老师,这四张图是 time sequence,还是四个独立的 test results?
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
Excellent!
Time sequence sounds fine. - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
How much time is being given for each step? - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
81老師,Can you post more questions in ah-san's test, I will have my son who is 12 year old not yet learn physics and chemistry to do it.
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
zxd wrote:
How much time is being given for each step?
Didn't say. I guess it is within a normal class hour. - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
caoye wrote:
81老師,Can you post more questions in ah-san's test, I will have my son who is 12 year old not yet learn physics and chemistry to do it.
Write to Anton Lawson (anton1@asu.edu) and he will send you the test.
Or write to me (visitor101@gmail.com) if he is not responding. - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/03/2009
读James Buchanan 的一本书 (The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of
Constitutional Democracy),里面开头讲方法论时,他说他用的模型的正确与否要
决定于他从那模型推出的结论的正确与否。本人读着的时候对书里的James Buchanan说:
“James呀,我的模型是 2 = 3 和 3 = 2, 推理过程是让那等式的两面各自相加,
得出的结论是 5 = 5. 我的结论是正确的,但我的模型正确吗?所以,James,你那
个说法对吗?” - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
阿姗 wrote:
81老师,这四张图是 time sequence,还是四个独立的 test results?
应当是四个独立的 test results。若是time sequence而没有time stamps就太confusing了,特别是从2到3,光源和湿度同时改变,结论就不可靠了。
这题挺好的呀,不觉着那么小儿科,这比咱们的考试题更跟科学方法挂钩。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
浮生说得对。
(I thought you meant the 4 choices in your machine. Sorry)
浮生 wrote:
阿姗 wrote:应当是四个独立的 test results。若是time sequence而没有time stamps就太confusing了,特别是从2到3,光源和湿度同时改变,结论就不可靠了。
81老师,这四张图是 time sequence,还是四个独立的 test results?
这题挺好的呀,不觉着那么小儿科,这比咱们的考试题更跟科学方法挂钩。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
Comparing cases 1 and 3, one obviously sees sun light matters.
But in cases 1, 2 and 4, the numbers of the worms away from the sun are very close to each other (2,3 4). My first reaction is they are not significant enough to indicate anything, as this may well be some random outcome, not reflecting any potential underlying rules.
I would repeat the experiment many time before any conclusion. - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
I was asking the question because you said it's sequencial. Then I have to ask at each stage you allow the worms to be exposed to the changed conditions for how long before you change conditions again for them.
八十一子 wrote:
zxd wrote:Didn't say. I guess it is within a normal class hour.
How much time is being given for each step? - posted on 02/03/2009
These were the results of 4 independent experiments.
zxd wrote:
I was asking the question because you said it's sequencial. Then I have to ask at each stage you allow the worms to be exposed to the changed conditions for how long before you change conditions again for them.
八十一子 wrote:
zxd wrote:Didn't say. I guess it is within a normal class hour.
How much time is being given for each step? - posted on 02/03/2009
smart, real smart. :-D
it is light, my dear gz, not sunlight, and obviously it summarizes reproducible experimental results.
btw, how many physics PhD does it take to change the light bulb in these experiments? the answer is 3: one puts in the light bulb, the second takes the whole box outside and exposes the worms to the sun, and the third takes the box back and puts in a light bulb he found in a waste bin.
gz wrote:
Comparing cases 1 and 3, one obviously sees sun light matters.
But in cases 1, 2 and 4, the numbers of the worms away from the sun are very close to each other (2,3 4). My first reaction is they are not significant enough to indicate anything, as this may well be some random outcome, not reflecting any potential underlying rules.
I would repeat the experiment many time before any conclusion. - posted on 02/03/2009
Chater87 wrote:
读James Buchanan 的一本书 (The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of
Constitutional Democracy),里面开头讲方法论时,他说他用的模型的正确与否要
决定于他从那模型推出的结论的正确与否。本人读着的时候对书里的James Buchanan说:
“James呀,我的模型是 2 = 3 和 3 = 2, 推理过程是让那等式的两面各自相加,
得出的结论是 5 = 5. 我的结论是正确的,但我的模型正确吗?所以,James,你那
个说法对吗?”
你个山寨版。你的山寨模型当然是很山寨地正确地。有纠错能力嘛。 - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/03/2009
不公平,不公平,我好赖也是上过中学的,但读了两遍你们的题还是没太懂。而且,as result, my brain seems to be damaged by thinking it too hard, as predicted by 八老师。
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
八十一子 wrote:不客气。:-)
smart, real smart. :-D
it is light, my dear gz, not sunlight,小时候画的太阳不都是这样的? :-)
你先说:“These were the results of 4 independent experiments.“
你又说:“ obviously it summarizes reproducible experimental results.“
如果总是同样一帮家伙不喜欢光,它们就是 outliers, 不算数,扔了算啦!
- posted on 02/03/2009
hmmmm...on a second look, this does not appear to be something inviting a definite answer. Common sense on mealworm (米象?) would be: they don't like light nor wet, as they live happily in a bag of dry rice. The 4 pictures showed some "trend" on first look, but are a bit misleading on second look. None of the 4 answers make total sense to me. I give up.
八十一子 wrote:
smart, real smart. :-D
it is light, my dear gz, not sunlight, and obviously it summarizes reproducible experimental results.
btw, how many physics PhD does it take to change the light bulb in these experiments? the answer is 3: one puts in the light bulb, the second takes the whole box outside and exposes the worms to the sun, and the third takes the box back and puts in a light bulb he found in a waste bin.
gz wrote:
Comparing cases 1 and 3, one obviously sees sun light matters.
But in cases 1, 2 and 4, the numbers of the worms away from the sun are very close to each other (2,3 4). My first reaction is they are not significant enough to indicate anything, as this may well be some random outcome, not reflecting any potential underlying rules.
I would repeat the experiment many time before any conclusion. - posted on 02/03/2009
Chater87 wrote:
读James Buchanan 的一本书 (The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of
Constitutional Democracy),里面开头讲方法论时,他说他用的模型的正确与否要
决定于他从那模型推出的结论的正确与否。本人读着的时候对书里的James Buchanan说:
“James呀,我的模型是 2 = 3 和 3 = 2, 推理过程是让那等式的两面各自相加,
得出的结论是 5 = 5. 我的结论是正确的,但我的模型正确吗?所以,James,你那
个说法对吗?”
他说的大概是必要条件,不是充分条件。
正确模型可以导出正确结论: M ----> C
正确结论不一定出于正确模型: C -?-> M
以太燃素都可以解释自然现象,但都是错误模型。 - posted on 02/03/2009
"Models may be divided into three parts: assumptions, analysis, and conclusions. Assumptions may or may not be “descriptive” or “realistic,” as these words are ordinarily used. In many cases the “unrealism” of the assumptions causes the models to be rejected before the conclusions are examined and tested. Fundamentally, the only test for “realism” of assumptions lies in the applicability of the conclusions. For this reason the reader who is critical of the behavioral assumption employed here is advised to reserve his judgment of our models until he has checked some of the real-world implications of the model against his own general knowledge of existing political institutions." - James M. Buchanan
Buchanan said, 'the only test for “realism” of assumptions lies in the applicability of the conclusions' as in the above paragraph.
The above paragraph is from
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1063&layout=html#chapter_31498
A counter-example
My assumptions: 2 = 3 and 3 = 2
My Analysis: 2+3 = 3+2
My conclusions: 5 = 5
According to Buchanan, the only test for “realism” of assumptions (2 = 3 and 3 = 2) lies in the applicability of the conclusions (5 = 5); therefore the assumptions 2 = 3 and 3 = 2 meet the “realism” test.
But that is absurd; therefore Buchanan's claim is wrong.
- Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/03/2009
By the way, James M. Buchanan won the Nobel Prize.
Conclusion: one can't be too careful.
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
******SPOILER******
如果是 independent test results,那答案肯定是 d.
图1,2,4 显示虫子喜欢光,但图3说明不了虫子是否喜欢光,所以答案只可能是b,d。
图1,3 显示虫子不喜欢湿(湿的那里虫子少),图2,4 不能说明虫子是否喜欢湿,所以答案说明不了虫子对湿度的反映。答案就只有 d 了。
如果是 time sequence,答案应该是 a,因为虫子跟着光线跑。
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/03/2009
阿姗 wrote:
******SPOILER******
如果是 independent test results,那答案肯定是 d.
图1,2,4 显示虫子喜欢光,但图3说明不了虫子是否喜欢光,所以答案只可能是b,d。
图1,3 显示虫子不喜欢湿(湿的那里虫子少),图2,4 不能说明虫子是否喜欢湿,所以答案说明不了虫子对湿度的反映。答案就只有 d 了。
图三说明虫子喜欢光但不喜欢事湿,所以选了一个中间位置,离光足够近,又离湿足够远。 - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/03/2009
Chater88 wrote:
A counter-example
My assumptions: 2 = 3 and 3 = 2
My Analysis: 2+3 = 3+2
My conclusions: 5 = 5
You analysis is incomplete. It does not include 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, which does not infer your conclusion. - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/04/2009
How many things are wrong in this little logic construct? Let's see, I can count the redundancy of premises, the fallacy of four terms, and the existential fallacy.
My favorite? Take your pick. ;-)
Chater88 wrote:
A counter-example
My assumptions: 2 = 3 and 3 = 2
My Analysis: 2+3 = 3+2
My conclusions: 5 = 5
- posted on 02/04/2009
Another Lawson's question:
THE FROGS
Professor Thistlebush wants to know approximately how many frog live in the pond near his home. Because he could not catch all the frogs, he caught as many as he could, put a band around their left hind legs, and then put them back in the pond. A week later he returned to the pond and again caught as many frogs as he could. Here are the Professor's data.
First trip to the pond
55 frogs caught and banded
Second trip to the pond
72 frogs caught, of those 72 frogs, 12 were banded
The Professor assumed that the banded and un-banded frogs had mixed thoroughly and from his data he was able to compute the approximate number of frogs in the pond.
What do you think is the approximate number of frogs in the pond?
a) 72
b) 115
c) 275
d) 330
Explain your answer. - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/04/2009
c)
The worms like light, don't like wet, so they respond to both. - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/04/2009
hbai来了?欢迎啊。
hbai wrote:
c)
The worms like light, don't like wet, so they respond to both. - posted on 02/04/2009
d) 72*55/12=330
八十一子 wrote:
Another Lawson's question:
THE FROGS
Professor Thistlebush wants to know approximately how many frog live in the pond near his home. Because he could not catch all the frogs, he caught as many as he could, put a band around their left hind legs, and then put them back in the pond. A week later he returned to the pond and again caught as many frogs as he could. Here are the Professor's data.
First trip to the pond
55 frogs caught and banded
Second trip to the pond
72 frogs caught, of those 72 frogs, 12 were banded
The Professor assumed that the banded and un-banded frogs had mixed thoroughly and from his data he was able to compute the approximate number of frogs in the pond.
What do you think is the approximate number of frogs in the pond?
a) 72
b) 115
c) 275
d) 330
Explain your answer. - posted on 02/04/2009
八十一子 wrote:
Another Lawson's question:
THE FROGS
Professor Thistlebush wants to know approximately how many frog live in the pond near his home. Because he could not catch all the frogs, he caught as many as he could, put a band around their left hind legs, and then put them back in the pond. A week later he returned to the pond and again caught as many frogs as he could. Here are the Professor's data.
First trip to the pond
55 frogs caught and banded
Second trip to the pond
72 frogs caught, of those 72 frogs, 12 were banded
The Professor assumed that the banded and un-banded frogs had mixed thoroughly and from his data he was able to compute the approximate number of frogs in the pond.
What do you think is the approximate number of frogs in the pond?
a) 72
b) 115
c) 275
d) 330
Explain your answer.
嘿,我说老八,中国中学生要是连这种初中数学应用题都做不过美国中学生,那可不大可信吧?:-) - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/04/2009
hbai 是物理课代表吧?:-) - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/04/2009
中国中学生要是连这种初中数学应用题都做不过美国中学生,那可不大可信吧?:-)
没说做不过。说的是两边学生总体上没有差别。
- posted on 02/04/2009
我的答案:a
我的解释:3个实验(1,2,4)的观察结果明显显示mealworms对光做出反应。实验3的mealworms的分布好像没有1,2,4那么明显说明对光有反应(阿姗提到)。但是,拿3和1 比较一下看:二者的湿度分布一样,光线分布不一样(相反),mealworms的分布不一样。所以,图3这种mealworms的分布不一样的原因只能是由于光线分布不一样(光源位置不同)造成的。 这说明图3 也显示出mealworms对光有反应。4个实验的结果对mealworms对湿度做出反应没有明确的结论。
所以,准确的实验结论一定含有mealworms对光做出反应这一结论,同时一定不能包括mealworms对湿度有反应这样的结论。 所以b,c排除。d否定了mealworms对光做出反应的结果,所以也不对。
- posted on 02/04/2009
当然是A。这么简单的推理题,老八在忽悠我?我的IQ test题目都比这些难好多。
st dude wrote:
我的答案:a
我的解释:3个实验(1,2,4)的观察结果明显显示mealworms对光做出反应。实验3的mealworms的分布好像没有1,2,4那么明显说明对光有反应(阿姗提到)。但是,3和1 比较一下看,二者的湿度分布一样,光线分布不一样(相反),mealworms的分布不一样。所以,图3这种mealworms的分布不一样的原因只能是由于光线分布不一样(光源位置不同)造成的。 这说明图3 也显示出mealworms对光有反应。4个实验的结果对mealworms对湿度做出反应没有明确的结论。
所以,准确的实验结论一定含有mealworms对光做出反应这一结论,同时一定不能包括mealworms对湿度有反应这样的结论。 所以b,c排除。d否定了mealworms对光做出反应的结果,所以也不对。
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/04/2009
想的太复杂的人会把实验现象甚至实验目的想复杂了。要童心观察,简单分析,这可能是老八的用意。
玛雅 wrote:
当然是A。这么简单的推理题,老八在忽悠我?我的IQ test题目都比这些难好多。
- Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/04/2009
两边相减就不相等了。Analysis incomplete.
Chater88 wrote:
A counter-example
My assumptions: 2 = 3 and 3 = 2
My Analysis: 2+3 = 3+2
My conclusions: 5 = 5
- posted on 02/04/2009
st dude wrote:
想的太复杂的人会把实验现象甚至实验目的想复杂了。要童心观察,简单分析,这可能是老八的用意。
玛雅 wrote:
当然是A。这么简单的推理题,老八在忽悠我?我的IQ test题目都比这些难好多。
答案要是A的话,那图片3和4中的蠕虫分布就应该完全相同。 :)
这个所谓的中学题出得很不好。跟物理跟本没关系。跟逻辑有一点关系,但可惜题的条件很不全面和明确,不足以得出明确的结论。上面很多网友如果选E为答案,也不为错。这点条件下,只能说,受灯炮的影响比较明显,但受湿度影响不太明确但似乎存在。C和D之间是因为时间的关系?题中条件并没有提。:)
能不能给咱找一些象样的中学题来。:) - posted on 02/04/2009
I agree that my counter-example is flawed. But what Buchanan said ('the only test for “realism” of assumptions lies in the applicability of the conclusions') is still fundamentally wrong. The realm of human action is fundamentally different from that of physical things in that a person who tries to understand and to conceive human action has access to his understanding and conceiving of his own human action's internal values, logic, etc; on the other hand, a person who tries to understand and to conceive physical things has no such luxury. The later cannot resort to other methods than the empirical method; but the former can rely on his understanding and conceiving of his own inner state to propose self-evident axioms and go from there. In that case, there is no need for 'test for “realism” of assumptions'.
That is from epistemology point of view. James Buchanan used empirical method to study human action. That is where it came from. - posted on 02/04/2009
Inner state, that's it!
I agree that "the former can rely on his understanding and conceiving of his own inner state to propose self-evident axioms and go from there". But the inner state has a depth. The understanding and conceiving of man's inner state is built up on all generations ahead of us, and is still going on. Therefore the axioms could be partially right.
C.G. Jung "Modern Man in Search for a Soul" talks about the depth of the inner state.
Chater90 wrote:
I agree that my counter-example is flawed. But what Buchanan said ('the only test for “realism” of assumptions lies in the applicability of the conclusions') is still fundamentally wrong. The realm of human action is fundamentally different from that of physical things in that a person who tries to understand and to conceive human action has access to his understanding and conceiving of his own human action's internal values, logic, etc; on the other hand, a person who tries to understand and to conceive physical things has no such luxury. The later cannot resort to other methods than the empirical method; but the former can rely on his understanding and conceiving of his own inner state to propose self-evident axioms and go from there. In that case, there is no need for 'test for “realism” of assumptions'.
That is from epistemology point of view. James Buchanan used empirical method to study human action. That is where it came from. - posted on 02/04/2009
LHC wrote:
st dude wrote:答案要是A的话,那图片3和4中的蠕虫分布就应该完全相同。 :)
想的太复杂的人会把实验现象甚至实验目的想复杂了。要童心观察,简单分析,这可能是老八的用意。
玛雅 wrote:
当然是A。这么简单的推理题,老八在忽悠我?我的IQ test题目都比这些难好多。
这个所谓的中学题出得很不好。跟物理跟本没关系。跟逻辑有一点关系,但可惜题的条件很不全面和明确,不足以得出明确的结论。上面很多网友如果选E为答案,也不为错。这点条件下,只能说,受灯炮的影响比较明显,但受湿度影响不太明确但似乎存在。C和D之间是因为时间的关系?题中条件并没有提。:)
能不能给咱找一些象样的中学题来。:)
"The mealworm's preferred environment is very dry, moderately warm, and dark."http://lhsfoss.org/fossweb/teachers/materials/plantanimal/tenebriobeetles.html
The design of the question was flawed: it suggests that the mealworms are "pro-light", while in reality they are the opposite.
But if we ignore the reality, and only try to draw conclusion based on the diagrams, C indeed appears to be the best answer though. What's answer E?
enough time wasted on this one.
- posted on 02/04/2009
Your problem is that in the midstream of your total conversion to an obviously wrong and dated theory (remember, converts are usually way more fanatic than originals), the economy collapsed and even your idol Greenspan jumped ship. The ideological trail you wandered onto now looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. And eager to prove the otherside wrong, your heart skipped a few beats when you thought you've made up the perfect concoction to discredit reality based thinking. I am surprised though that for somebody who always brags about his logic deductive prowess, you didn't find the time to refresh your memory about syllogism and how to properly construct logical arguments? ;-)
Also, I can concede that a wrong theory may chance upon a correct answer (statistically very small chance indeed), always a bad prediction inevitably proves a theory wrong. I hate to break it to you, but you can throw all the books you've been reading to the waste bin now. ;-)
Chater90 wrote:
I agree that my counter-example is flawed. But what Buchanan said ('the only test for “realism” of assumptions lies in the applicability of the conclusions') is still fundamentally wrong. The realm of human action is fundamentally different from that of physical things in that a person who tries to understand and to conceive human action has access to his understanding and conceiving of his own human action's internal values, logic, etc; on the other hand, a person who tries to understand and to conceive physical things has no such luxury. The later cannot resort to other methods than the empirical method; but the former can rely on his understanding and conceiving of his own inner state to propose self-evident axioms and go from there. In that case, there is no need for 'test for “realism” of assumptions'.
That is from epistemology point of view. James Buchanan used empirical method to study human action. That is where it came from. - posted on 02/05/2009
Kindly tell me your theory or a reference to some books that approximate your opinion and I'll learn from you.
I never hastily slight my opponent unless I know for sure that he is empty. Once I know he is empty AND arrogant, I'm relentless in my words.
So please help me learn from you. Thanks!
tar wrote:
Your problem is that in the midstream of your total conversion to an obviously wrong and dated theory (remember, converts are usually way more fanatic than originals), the economy collapsed and even your idol Greenspan jumped ship. The ideological trail you wandered onto now looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. And eager to prove the otherside wrong, your heart skipped a few beats when you thought you've made up the perfect concoction to discredit reality based thinking. I am surprised though that for somebody who always brags about his logic deductive prowess, you didn't find the time to refresh your memory about syllogism and how to properly construct logical arguments? ;-)
Also, I can concede that a wrong theory may chance upon a correct answer (statistically very small chance indeed), always a bad prediction inevitably proves a theory wrong. I hate to break it to you, but you can throw all the books you've been reading to the waste bin now. ;-)
Chater90 wrote:
I agree that my counter-example is flawed. But what Buchanan said ('the only test for “realism” of assumptions lies in the applicability of the conclusions') is still fundamentally wrong. The realm of human action is fundamentally different from that of physical things in that a person who tries to understand and to conceive human action has access to his understanding and conceiving of his own human action's internal values, logic, etc; on the other hand, a person who tries to understand and to conceive physical things has no such luxury. The later cannot resort to other methods than the empirical method; but the former can rely on his understanding and conceiving of his own inner state to propose self-evident axioms and go from there. In that case, there is no need for 'test for “realism” of assumptions'.
That is from epistemology point of view. James Buchanan used empirical method to study human action. That is where it came from. - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/05/2009
My "idol Greenspan"?
You cohort didn't even bother checking what's inside the books I'd been reading before you made that kind of assertions. But I AM ready to learn from everyone including you. So please help me. Tell me a book or two. I would appreciate it.
tar wrote: - posted on 02/05/2009
I feel bad for the authors of the books you read. It's a blasphemy the way you made it your life's mission to showoff bits and pieces of the ideas that you are incapable of digesting. Especially on this thread of discussing 科学推理能力, you've embarrassed yourself enough already. (Judging from how many people messed up that simple test, you are not alone if that's any consolation.)
Look, I like you, from the old days. To you my words may sound harsh, that's only because many people look at you as a laughing stock, and it doesn't have to be. But until then, I will bow out from any serious discussion with you. Do not despair, for there are enough here at your level that you can engage to stoke your swollen ego. ;-)
Chater95 wrote:
My "idol Greenspan"?
You cohort didn't even bother checking what's inside the books I'd been reading before you made that kind of assertions. But I AM ready to learn from everyone including you. So please help me. Tell me a book or two. I would appreciate it.
tar wrote: - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/05/2009
八十一子 wrote:
hbai 是物理课代表吧?:-)
Why??? The quizzes have nothing to do with physics.
Used to be good at 组词,填空,改错别字。当过语文科代表噢。
- Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/05/2009
八十一子大概是指你把答案都抢答了吧。是表扬你喔。;-)
hbai wrote:
八十一子 wrote:Why??? The quizzes have nothing to do with physics.
hbai 是物理课代表吧?:-)
Used to be good at 组词,填空,改错别字。当过语文科代表噢。
- posted on 02/05/2009
Look at your own post. What is in it? It is empty.
I never mind my being a laughing stock of many persons because I know that I am still enriching my intellectual life.
I view persons who can pinpoint my fallacies as my best friends. You? You are not my friend not because you uses "harsh" words on me but because your words are empty.
I cannot be beaten because I have nothing to defend. I have nothing to defend because I seek truth.
Use logic and reason to demonstrate (prove) that what I have been restating is wrong, then you will become my friend. If you don't have time to do that, please recommend a book to me that can do the work for you.
Don't think that my attack on those who are arrogant and ignorant is as empty as your "harsh" words. I already repeatedly asked for their theoretical basis (books). Their answer is none. They are empty, arrogant and ignorant.
tar wrote:
I feel bad for the authors of the books you read. It's a blasphemy the way you made it your life's mission to showoff bits and pieces of the ideas that you are incapable of digesting. Especially on this thread of discussing 科学推理能力, you've embarrassed yourself enough already. (Judging from how many people messed up that simple test, you are not alone if that's any consolation.)
Look, I like you, from the old days. To you my words may sound harsh, that's only because many people look at you as a laughing stock, and it doesn't have to be. But until then, I will bow out from any serious discussion with you. Do not despair, for there are enough here at your level that you can engage to stoke your swollen ego. ;-)
Chater95 wrote:
My "idol Greenspan"?
You cohort didn't even bother checking what's inside the books I'd been reading before you made that kind of assertions. But I AM ready to learn from everyone including you. So please help me. Tell me a book or two. I would appreciate it.
tar wrote: - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/05/2009
Chater96 wrote:
I never mind my being a laughing stock of many persons because I know that I am still enriching my intellectual life.
You know "people" is a perfect English word, don't you? Could you explain why the word "persons" is OK but "people" is a taboo for you? - posted on 02/08/2009
阿姗 wrote:
******SPOILER******
如果是 independent test results,那答案肯定是 d.
图1,2,4 显示虫子喜欢光,但图3说明不了虫子是否喜欢光,所以答案只可能是b,d。
图1,3 显示虫子不喜欢湿(湿的那里虫子少),图2,4 不能说明虫子是否喜欢湿,所以答案说明不了虫子对湿度的反映。答案就只有 d 了。
如果是 time sequence,答案应该是 a,因为虫子跟着光线跑。
我也倾向于d (独立实验),但我觉得好象不太能是时序性的。。。因为如果是时序性的,即使解决了length of time step的问题--即四张图呈现的状态并非昙花一现,而是各自时间段上的稳态,仍有问题。且定义状态S为mealworm的空间分布,设T时刻系统状态为S(T), 时序意味着系统当前态S(T)不仅是当前外控参量(湿度分布H(T)和光线分布L(T))的函数,而且还是S(0)...S(T-1)的函数,递推一下,S(T)相当于S(0)与H(t), L(t) (t=0,...T)的某种组合,这样进行直观判断L和H的影响恐怕比较困难(肉眼难以剥离前面各状态对当前状态的影响.),且很可能越到推后的状态越难.也不能任意(无序)选择图中S(0)-S(3)进行两两比较,而只能选择相邻态(这条线上基本都是无序选择进行比较的)。所以我觉得当前mealworm的空间分布仅由当前湿度和阳光分布,或其他外部因素决定,四幅图显示的是分别设置湿度和光线后,系统的稳态响应。 ”因为虫子跟着光跑“,这句话也是只说了光线的影响,与时序似乎没有关系:) - Re: 中学物理课跟中学生的科学推理能力有关吗?posted on 02/08/2009
郁闷啊......
即便这四张图有时间顺序,反映的也应该是每次改变条件后、系统进入新的平衡时的状态,否则就不是合理的实验报告了。 - posted on 02/09/2009
不是题目出的不好. 如果意图是想证明mealworm光和湿度的反应, 是这是一个不完全的实验. 但反过来说,这种不完全正是出题者的用意. 能得出什么结论就是什么结论. 所以我倒觉得题目很好.
看看这么说是否说的清楚:
实验2和4 说明了在湿度均匀分布的情况下, mealworms 对光有反应. 这已经可以得出mealworms 肯定对光有反应的结论了. 其它的实验(1,3)在此都是多余的. 所以答案一定含有mealworms 对光有反应这一结论.
因为实验2和4是湿度均匀分布的情况下, 所以不可能用来说明mealworms对湿度的反应. 而1和3 由于和光的因素混在一起. 不能得出mealworms对湿度的反应的结论. 所以对湿度反应是没有结论的.
所以,答案是a
题目故意设计成缺少一个光线均匀分布而湿度不均匀分布的实验(如下图), 而多了些无关的实验. 在没有搞清mealworms在光线均匀条件下对湿度的反应的结论之前,1和3由于涉及到光线分布和湿度分布的共同作用,其实是没有用的.
或者
LHC wrote:
答案要是A的话,那图片3和4中的蠕虫分布就应该完全相同。 :)
这个所谓的中学题出得很不好。跟物理跟本没关系。跟逻辑有一点关系,但可惜题的条件很不全面和明确,不足以得出明确的结论。上面很多网友如果选E为答案,也不为错。这点条件下,只能说,受灯炮的影响比较明显,但受湿度影响不太明确但似乎存在。C和D之间是因为时间的关系?题中条件并没有提。:)
能不能给咱找一些象样的中学题来 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/09/2009
通过这条线的考察,看来结论与楼顶的研究相同:科学推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/09/2009
我也选了a。测试的评分答案是什么呢?倒是很感兴趣知道。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/09/2009
rzp wrote:
我也选了a。测试的评分答案是什么呢?倒是很感兴趣知道。
答案是C. 趋光,避湿。理由如上面hbai同学所说。 - posted on 02/09/2009
This is from Lawson:
The following are typical student responses to the Mealworm Puzzle. Read the responses and compare them with your own. Note that the responses have been classified into two types - Type A and Type B. Look for similarities among the Type A responses and among Type B responses. Also look for differences between Type A and Type B responses.
How Do Type A Students Respond?
Student A1 (Jennifer - Age 11)
Jennifer chose d. neither light nor moisture: "No definite pattern was followed by the mealworms."
Student A2 (Richard Cripe - Age 18)
Richard chose d. neither light nor moisture: "Because even though the light was moved in
different places the mealworms didn't do the same things."
Student A3 (Glenda - Age 16)
Glenda chose a. light but not moisture: "They usually went to the end of the box with the
light."
Student A4 (John Simonds - Age 14)
John chose a. light but not moisture: "Because there are 17 worms by the light and there are only 3
by moisture."
Student A5 (Ron Gerard - Age 16)
Ron chose a. light but not moisture: "Because in all situations, the majority go
where there's light. Wetness doesn't seem to make a difference."
How Do Type B Students Respond?
Student B1 (Cindy East - Age 15)
Cindy chose c. both light and moisture: "Boxes 1 and 2 show they prefer dry and
light to wet and dark, Box 4 eliminates dryness as a factor, so they do respond to light
only. Box 3 shows that wetness cancels the effect of the light, so it seems they prefer dry.
It would be clearer if one of the boxes was wet-dry with no light."
Student B2 (Jamall - Age 15)
Jamall chose c. both light and moisture: "When the light was on the dry side they all
crowded to the dry side. When it was on the wet side, an equal amount went to each side."
Student B3 (Ed - Age 16)
Ed chose c. both light and moisture: "In experiment 3 the mealworms in the middle.
So it's safe to assume that light was not the only factor involved."
Student B4 (Pam Stewart - Age 17)
Pam chose b. moisture but not light: "1, 2, and 3 show that mealworms seem to
like the light, but in 3 they seem to be equally spaced. This leads one to believe that
mealworms like the dryness and the reason in pictures 3 and 4 they are by the light is
because of the heat that the light produces which gives a dryness effect."
Student B5 (Hong - Age 17)
Hong chose c. both light and moisture: "The mealworms in all cases respond to light.
However, in box 3 mealworms are in the middle. This shows that the worms are attracted
to the light but not like the situations where the dry area was next to the light. When there
is no choice between wet and dry, such as in Box 4, the worms turn to the light." Note:
We might also test a wet/dry box with no light to further verify the effect of moisture.
Questions
1. What similarities did you find among the Type A responses?
2. What similarities did you find among the Type B responses?
3. How do the Type A and Type B responses differ?
- posted on 02/09/2009
八十一子 wrote:
答案是C. 趋光,避湿。理由如上面hbai同学所说。
I will definitely take an issue with this answer.
Comparing cases 2 (dry on both ends) and 4 (wet on both ends), we see clearly that the worms show different degrees of preference to light. The obviously prefer light more under the dry condition but less under the wet condition.
Moreover, comparing cases 1 (wet on right) and 2 (dry on right), we see more (three) worms on the wet side than the other case (two), indicating they prefer wet condition (while all other conditions are identical), opposite to what the answer claims.
As I have always thought, a better way to describe this experiment is not to treat light and humidity as two independent variables, but rather two related factors. Correspondingly, conditional probability can be used to describe such phenomenon, such as P(L/H), representing how much they prefer light, given a certain humidity condition, in terms of a probability.
- posted on 02/10/2009
Comparing cases 2 (dry on both ends) and 4 (wet on both ends), we see clearly that the worms show different degrees of preference to light. The obviously prefer light more under the dry condition but less under the wet condition.
If you present an experiment on any physical system that gives you exactly the same answer under the exact SAME condition every time you repeat it, let alone under slgihtly different conditions (wet or dry), people will question whether you doctored your data. ;-)
guanzhong wrote:
八十一子 wrote:I will definitely take an issue with this answer.
答案是C. 趋光,避湿。理由如上面hbai同学所说。
Comparing cases 2 (dry on both ends) and 4 (wet on both ends), we see clearly that the worms show different degrees of preference to light. The obviously prefer light more under the dry condition but less under the wet condition.
As I have always thought, a better way to describe this experiment is not to treat light and humidity as two independent variables, but rather two related factors. Correspondingly, conditional probability can be used to describe such phenomenon, such as P(L/H), representing how much they prefer light, given a certain humidity condition, in terms of a probability.
- posted on 02/10/2009
see my previous post dated 02/03/09 13:14
tar wrote:
Comparing cases 2 (dry on both ends) and 4 (wet on both ends), we see clearly that the worms show different degrees of preference to light. The obviously prefer light more under the dry condition but less under the wet condition.If you present an experiment on any physical system that gives you exactly the same answer under the exact SAME condition every time you repeat it, let alone under slgihtly different conditions (wet or dry), people will question whether you doctored your data. ;-) - posted on 02/10/2009
Jeez, you could have just pasted that post again.
I don't think you understood my point. What if the experimentor tells you that these patterns are pretty typical out of maybe 100 repeated tests already?
gz wrote:
see my previous post dated 02/03/09 13:14
tar wrote:
Comparing cases 2 (dry on both ends) and 4 (wet on both ends), we see clearly that the worms show different degrees of preference to light. The obviously prefer light more under the dry condition but less under the wet condition.If you present an experiment on any physical system that gives you exactly the same answer under the exact SAME condition every time you repeat it, let alone under slgihtly different conditions (wet or dry), people will question whether you doctored your data. ;-) - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/10/2009
Frankly, I am afraid you don't have the slightest idea about biological experiments. Don't be offended, however, for I am just as ignorant about modern physics. :-)
guanzhong wrote:
Moreover, comparing cases 1 (wet on right) and 2 (dry on right), we see more (three) worms on the wet side than the other case (two), indicating they prefer wet condition (while all other conditions are identical), opposite to what the answer claims.
- posted on 02/10/2009
humbly I admit. :-)
But the point is, this is not a serious biological experiment, at least the way it is presented, but some over simplified toy problem for the middle school kids to test their reasoning capabilities, and I treated the problem as such.
But you haven't responded my question below yet. Unless, as I said above, the difference between 3 and 2 worms on the right it insignificant.
八十一子 wrote:
Frankly, I am afraid you don't have the slightest idea about biological experiments. Don't be offended, however, for I am just as ignorant about modern physics. :-)
guanzhong wrote:
Moreover, comparing cases 1 (wet on right) and 2 (dry on right), we see more (three) worms on the wet side than the other case (two), indicating they prefer wet condition (while all other conditions are identical), opposite to what the answer claims.
- posted on 02/10/2009
That's what he is trying to tell you. It is possible for ONE single worm who prefers wet environment than dry, due to genetic mutations, etc. But you look at the whole, most worms do prefer to stay at bright and dry spot.
Even yourself was thinking about probability. Most complicated systems follow statistical distributions. One or two outliers can fall way outside of the normal distribution, and that doesn't mean you can infer it as the majority behavior.
gz wrote:
But you haven't responded my question below yet. Unless, as I said above, the difference between 3 and 2 worms on the right it insignificant.
- posted on 02/10/2009
tar wrote:
That's what he is trying to tell you. It is possible for ONE single worm who prefers wet environment than dry, due to genetic mutations, etc. But you look at the whole, most worms do prefer to stay at bright and dry spot.
Even yourself was thinking about probability. Most complicated systems follow statistical distributions. One or two outliers can fall way outside of the normal distribution, and that doesn't mean you can infer it as the majority behavior.
Why are you repeating my words? Again, it would save you some time if you go back and read my post above dated 02/03/09 14:44 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/10/2009
Did you copyright the word outlier?
Read my post above again, and you wouldn't ask the questions you asked.
As for throwing away data you don't like, hope that's not what you do routinely at whatever you do. - posted on 02/10/2009
Now I seem convinced by the title of another link "The death of rational man":-)
Janus may want to make a killing by selling umbrella, instead of cursing people not listening to his "rational" forecasting. :-) :-) :-)
gz wrote:
tar wrote:Why are you repeating my words? Again, it would save you some time if you go back and read my post above dated 02/03/09 14:44
That's what he is trying to tell you. It is possible for ONE single worm who prefers wet environment than dry, due to genetic mutations, etc. But you look at the whole, most worms do prefer to stay at bright and dry spot.
Even yourself was thinking about probability. Most complicated systems follow statistical distributions. One or two outliers can fall way outside of the normal distribution, and that doesn't mean you can infer it as the majority behavior. - posted on 02/13/2009
通过这条线的考察,看来结论与楼顶的研究相同:科学推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关
我代表物理同学表示不同的看法. 如果答案是 c的话,老八的结论至少要改写成:
通过这条线的考察,看来结论是:生物推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关
因为物理推理不是这样. 初中物理也有类似像这种同时有几个以上的变化因素(湿度,光度和mealworms 分布)混在一起共同作用的实验. 理想气体体积对压强和温度反应实验. 我们可以把生物实验和理想气体物理实验对应地看一看: 物理实验里的理想气体体积(气体分子分布)和mealworms分布对应, 压强和光对应, 温度和湿度对应. 所以两个实验类似.
物理推理是怎么告诉学生的呢?研究几个以上变量的关系时,往往是先研究其中两个变量间的关系,保持其它量不变,比如让温度不变, 看气体体积对压力的反应. 然后综合起来得到所要研究的几个量之间的关系(其实很多物理实验都是按这样推理进行的, 单摆,牛顿第二定律...).
所以我们通过等温实验发现:在等温情况下, 气体体积度随着压强增大而增大
通过等压实验发现:在等压情况下, 气体体积度随着温度增大而增大
(当然,还可以有等容情况...).
在此基础上,推出结论, 也就是理想气体方程.
所以,如果真正按照物理推理,这组mealworms实验本应该设计成:
等湿情况下:mealworms随着光线变化是否反应
等光情况下:mealworms随着湿度变化是否反应
然后,我们才能得出mealworms对湿度和光线是否有反应的结论. 既然这道题里的这组实验没有这么安排,缺少一个等光实验, 只有等湿情况. 所以,我们无论如何是不能明确得出mealworms随着湿度变化是否反应的结论的, 因为在缺乏等光的条件下,mealworms的任何反应都可以被认为对光线反应而不是对湿度的反应. 作为测验题而不是真正的实验设计, 题目没有等光这种安排是完全可以的,但因此必须是看到什么说什么,不能作出超出实验安排的结论. 实事上,有两个学生在自己的回答中已经指出了这一点.
同时,既然作为一种考察能力的测验。也就是看what you think而不是what you know。 答案如果是c,也给那些事先知道mealworms 喜欢光不喜欢湿的学生占了便宜. 失去了测试推理能力的意义.
八十一子 wrote:
通过这条线的考察,看来结论与楼顶的研究相同:科学推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关。 - Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/13/2009
Still debating?
事实上mealworms 既不喜欢光也不喜欢湿。
事先知道其习性的反而会被这个题目的错误设计而get confused.
如果不顾事实,只按题目的设计做,当然只好选 C。
st dude wrote:答案如果是c,也给那些事先知道mealworms 喜欢光不喜欢湿的学生占了便宜. 失去了测试推理能力的意义.
- posted on 02/13/2009
您做错了,别的学物理、法语、神学的同学做对了,不是恰好说明懂得科学推理不一定要学物理么?:-)
st dude wrote:
通过这条线的考察,看来结论与楼顶的研究相同:科学推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关我代表物理同学表示不同的看法. 如果答案是 c的话,老八的结论至少要改写成:
通过这条线的考察,看来结论是:生物推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关
因为物理推理不是这样. 初中物理也有类似像这种同时有几个以上的变化因素(湿度,光度和mealworms 分布)混在一起共同作用的实验. 理想气体体积对压强和温度反应实验. 我们可以把生物实验和理想气体物理实验对应地看一看: 物理实验里的理想气体体积(气体分子分布)和mealworms分布对应, 压强和光对应, 温度和湿度对应. 所以两个实验类似.
物理推理是怎么告诉学生的呢?研究几个以上变量的关系时,往往是先研究其中两个变量间的关系,保持其它量不变,比如让温度不变, 看气体体积对压力的反应. 然后综合起来得到所要研究的几个量之间的关系(其实很多物理实验都是按这样推理进行的, 单摆,牛顿第二定律...).
所以我们通过等温实验发现:在等温情况下, 气体体积度随着压强增大而增大
通过等压实验发现:在等压情况下, 气体体积度随着温度增大而增大
(当然,还可以有等容情况...).
在此基础上,推出结论, 也就是理想气体方程.
所以,如果真正按照物理推理,这组mealworms实验本应该设计成:
等湿情况下:mealworms随着光线变化是否反应
等光情况下:mealworms随着湿度变化是否反应
然后,我们才能得出mealworms对湿度和光线是否有反应的结论. 既然这道题里的这组实验没有这么安排,缺少一个等光实验, 只有等湿情况. 所以,我们无论如何是不能明确得出mealworms随着湿度变化是否反应的结论的, 因为在缺乏等光的条件下,mealworms的任何反应都可以被认为对光线反应而不是对湿度的反应. 作为测验题而不是真正的实验设计, 题目没有等光这种安排是完全可以的,但因此必须是看到什么说什么,不能作出超出实验安排的结论. 实事上,有两个学生在自己的回答中已经指出了这一点.
同时,既然作为一种考察能力的测验。也就是看what you think而不是what you know。 答案如果是c,也给那些事先知道mealworms 喜欢光不喜欢湿的学生占了便宜. 失去了测试推理能力的意义.
八十一子 wrote:
通过这条线的考察,看来结论与楼顶的研究相同:科学推理能力跟学不学物理(含数学)无关。 - posted on 02/13/2009
I am guessing the mealworms as beetle larvae probably prefer physically protected (and thus likely to be shaded, but not complete dark) and dry places.
二老板 wrote:
Still debating?
事实上mealworms 既不喜欢光也不喜欢湿。
事先知道其习性的反而会被这个题目的错误设计而get confused.
如果不顾事实,只按题目的设计做,当然只好选 C。
st dude wrote:答案如果是c,也给那些事先知道mealworms 喜欢光不喜欢湿的学生占了便宜. 失去了测试推理能力的意义.
- posted on 02/13/2009
八十一子 wrote:
您做错了,别的学物理、法语、神学的同学做对了,不是恰好说明懂得科学推理不一定要学物理么?:-)
我也奇怪呢。做出回答的几位同学,哪几个是学物理,哪几位是学法语、神学的?
浮生:若是time sequence,结论就不可靠了
gz:not significant enough to indicate anything
二老板:does not appear to be something inviting a definite answer
阿姗:答案说明不了虫子对湿度的反映
行人:图三说明虫子喜欢光但不喜欢事湿(答案C)
hbai:C
st dude:实验的结果对mealworms对湿度做出反应没有明确的结论。答案A
玛雅:当然是A
LHC:受灯炮的影响比较明显,但受湿度影响不太明确但似乎存在
brendaa:我也倾向于d (独立实验)
rzp:A
八十一子:答案是C
做对的(C):行人,hbai,八十一子
结论不明确:浮生,gz,二老板,阿姗,st dude,LHC,brendaa
做错的又没有给理由的:玛雅,rzp
我不知道大家都是学什么的,印象中 gz,st dude,rzp 等学过物理,还有我。为什么几个学物理的,都做出类似的“结论不明确”的判断呢?是否说明科学推理能力比较强的人,对本题这样简化的试验结果持高度质疑的态度呢?因为如果我做的实验结果是这样的,我是不会妄自下结论说,虫子肯定受湿度影响。我只能说,结果不明确,需要设计其它的实验来确认。
当然,当行人做出解释以后,我觉得他所说的非常有道理,也看到了自己逻辑中的错漏,所以没有继续再研究这个问题了。
- Re: 中美两国中学生的科学推理能力比较posted on 02/14/2009
嘻嘻,阿姗,我没有学过大学物理,所以我把可能的怀疑和不确定因素都给排除了,给的答案也是C :)
后来看了后边的分析,我立即想,是啊是啊,这个题都没有说虫子是活的死的嘛,怎么能下结论呢?所以我觉着八十一子列的Lawson的A、B类回答肯定是不全面的,应当还有C类,rigorously scientific类,a.k.a. 钻牛角尖类(很褒义的哦,我小时一到考试就钻牛角尖):)所以这是我的结论,若是给Nature投稿,这个试验肯定要重设计否则就是结论不确定,要想蒙混过关至少也要把所有的条件都列出来,若是对付中学考试选C肯定没错啦。 - posted on 02/14/2009
阿珊真认真。我当时是认为几幅图没有时间上关联,而且我以为有reaction是指趋光和趋湿,而不是趋光避湿(away from the humility)。看到你们后来的讨论才知道题意都没有理解一样,也没有在根据你们的假设再答。
我学过中大学物理,不过中学学的比大学好,大学只有实验课很好,理论特别是现代物理,从当时到现在都一头雾水。问过学过专业物理的LG,他也得A。
科学推理能力四个挺广的范围,逻辑推理能力的基础不是在数学里吗?为什么只讨论跟学物理的关系呢?我女儿现在表现出来形象思维和记忆和抽象逻辑思维的能力简直是天壤之别。她可能比较极端,但每个人的类似这方面差别是否也影响了科学推理能力?
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 八十一子
- #1 玛雅
- #2 Ruozhi
- #3 Joey
- #4 Chater85
- #5 Chater86
- #6 July
- #7 July
- #8 gz
- #9 qinggang
- #10 老瓦
- #11 老瓦
- #12 Joey
- #13 八十一子
- #14 八十一子
- #15 二老板
- #16 阿姗
- #17 阿姗
- #18 八十一子
- #19 zxd
- #20 caoye
- #21 八十一子
- #22 八十一子
- #23 Chater87
- #24 浮生
- #25 八十一子
- #26 gz
- #27 zxd
- #28 八十一子
- #29 八十一子
- #30 山寨
- #31 鹿希
- #32 gz
- #33 二老板
- #34 gz
- #35 Chater88
- #36 Chater89
- #37 阿姗
- #38 行人
- #39 行人
- #40 tar
- #41 八十一子
- #42 hbai
- #43 July
- #44 hbai
- #45 gz
- #46 八十一子
- #47 八十一子
- #48 st dude
- #49 玛雅
- #50 st dude
- #51 CNDer
- #52 LHC
- #53 Chater90
- #54 CNDer
- #55 二老板
- #56 tar
- #57 Chater94
- #58 Chater95
- #59 tar
- #60 hbai
- #61 tar
- #62 Chater96
- #63 gz
- #64 brendaa
- #65 八十一子
- #66 st dude
- #67 八十一子
- #68 rzp
- #69 八十一子
- #70 八十一子
- #71 guanzhong
- #72 tar
- #73 gz
- #74 tar
- #75 八十一子
- #76 gz
- #77 tar
- #78 gz
- #79 tar
- #80 hbai
- #81 st dude
- #82 二老板
- #83 八十一子
- #84 八十一子
- #85 阿姗
- #86 浮生
- #87 rzp
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation