Teaching physics with hoax theories?

Misconception in any form is often a very effective springboard to education. In fact, sometimes you create that advantage by introducing your own Simplicio.

But I've discovered that practical limits apply. In order to refute the hoax theory for education purposes, you first have to present it. That doesn't often sit well with parents, school boards, or administrators. I was asked to intervene in one unfortunate case where the presentation was supervised by a substitute teacher who didn't quite understand the game plan; the students came away thinking the hoax theory was what they were supposed to learn.

The problem is that a concise presentation of any of the hoax theories in a classroom is best done by showing one of the available hoax videos: Collier, Sibrel, Fox (Nash), or Kaysing. And we've seen just what a powerful influence that is. Following up with classrom discussion is fine, but sometimes not as memorable as intended. Students remember television; they don't remember teacher lectures.

My brother-in-law teaches high school science. He and I have often spoken about a science lesson plan built around the hoax theory. Unfortunately we can't get around those uncomfortable side-effects to the point where he would want to teach it. There's just too much that can go wrong.

There is a professor who uses Bart Sibrel's video to teach a course in critical thinking. That game plan is predictable: show the video and debunk it, polling the students' beliefs at various points in the process. Unfortunately Sibrel trumpets this professor's comments as if it were an academic endorsement of his findings. In fact the professor's admiration for Sibrel's work is not in the strength of its conclusions, but rather in the density of hogwash it provides.

What if instead of using the hoax as the teaching material, you taught the material first, and then later on presented the hoax theory and asked the students to figure out if it was right or wrong. Instead of teaching the hoax first, then the math to figure it out, do it the other way around. Teach them, the math and let them debunk the hoaxes on their own. Or you don't even have to use the hoax. You could use what actually happened. After a lesson, have them calculate how long it would take for a feather and a hammer to drop to the surface on the moon. Once they have their calculations done, show them the video of Dave Scott.

Not a very good idea. You might end up with something like this happening.

That's what I had in mind when I thought of using perpetual motion machines in a physics class. You could do it in the last days of the class to increase the "fun factor" when the students are otherwise preoccupied. And they get to apply all the stuff they've learned.

I'm a communications engineer, so I specialize in debunking crackpot communication schemes. There is no field too arcane to have its share of nutters and scammers. Usually the inventor makes bandwidth or power claims far beyond the state of the art and would violate fundamental mathematical limits. A big favorite is sending broadcast quality video down ordinary 3kHz voice phone lines.

A few have built companies around them and take real money from real investors. This really makes me angry. The investors, who don't know any better, are being exploited by a scam, or more often people who are just plain clueless.

I've encountered a few professors who have had their students pick these bogus schemes apart in a homework assignment or exam. You grade the results so you can ensure they get the point.

T=(Wf)(450s) = 300,000px450s = 587seconds
F 230,000p

Vg=(F)(g)(T) = 230,000px32f/s-sx587s = 14,000f/s
Wf 300,000p

R=Wt = 472,946p = 2.73Õ In(2.73) = 1.01
Wb 172,946

V=(Vg)(1.01) – (Gx’)(T)

V=(14,400 f/s)(1.01-(7.38f/s)(587s)=14,544f/s – 4332 f/s = 10,212 f/s

Vesc = Vorb + V = 25,621 f/s + 10,212 f/s = 35,833 ft/sec

If I was back in school and was presented with the above, I would not be interested and probably move on to something else, but that's just me. Now, put a good biography of an astronaut in my hands and I would eat it up. It's amazing how much can be clarified with a book like that. When you view technology in a social context, you tend to understand better why something was created, what it was used, why it was improved or flawed, sometimes how it worked and how it was fixed or why it broke.
Remember Aldrin bringing along wrist tethers, foot restraints and portable handholds to assist in the Gemini 12 spacewalk? They worked brilliantly and shows the ability of the astronauts in putting their experience and ingenuity to work, but it is not information that would be in any technical manual, schematic or parts manual.
If one of the astronauts says that their quarters were cramped in a capsule I find myself looking for an illustration of the capsule to get a visualization of how cramped it was. But that can't tell me how it felt. Same thing with how cold it got on Apollo 13 when all non-vital systems were shut down. Sure, a journal can tell me it went down to 40 degrees, but I appreciate and understand it better when I'm informed how their coveralls turned slimy, and how they longed for thermal underwear, or how they didn't have room to wear their spacesuits or why they couldn't sleep or had bouts of loneliness.
If you can connect to the human condition, it bridges the gap between technobabble and human experiences. Plus, a wider variety of people enjoy reading good stories, which is also what the Apollo missions were - Adventure! The Unknown! Disaster!
Like I've posted previously, comic books (using the graphic novel format) need to be produced from these "tales of adventure and daring". Now that would be something worthwhile to pursue.
i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/apollo11-1.jpg
i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/apollo11_2.jpg