A couple of weeks ago, in my Physical Chemistry class, we were told that most of the ideas we learned in General Chemistry were wrong. I quote my Professor, “So… we lied to you.”
The explanation? The “correct” idea is too complicated for an introductory course. This was actually in context of what’s called hybrid atomic orbital. It was thought to be correct by chemists a few years ago because it explained the shape of a molecule very well. But based on empirical evidences and quantum mechanics, it has since then been refuted. However, most general chemistry textbooks still use this model to explain molecular shapes in intro courses.
Following this revelation, the class discussed whether it was the right thing to do. Did we feel manipulated? If I’d decided not to pursue Chemistry any further after the intro course, I would have spent my life with a flawed idea about how molecules bind. Ok, I doubt this would have any serious ramification… but I did feel like this was pretty ironic since this flawed concept was supposed to “educate” me. Wouldn’t I rather think that I don’t know how something happens than believe that I do when, in fact, I don’t?
I don’t know if it’s just me but I feel like this has been a recurring theme in my education. As I learn more and more, I have to abandon what I previously believed in and put my faith on a new, improved idea knowing that next semester, I’ll probably have to renew my faith again. So, how far do I have to go before I really know?
But then I realized that it’s not just the academic system that works like this. It’s also how the process of human knowledge in general works. Science comes from humans trying to explain things they observe in nature. It is a constant process of discovery. It’s also a constant process of rectifying previously held notions. Nature is complicated, down to and especially at, the most fundamental levels. We might never pin down the actual facts, the “absolute truth.” But as we go deeper, our understanding gets successively better, or so we hope. We have witnessed many times in history how wrong we’ve been, how we thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolves around it. As we learn more, we come up with a new theory knowing that it might just as easily be refuted. We never know whether what we know is accurate or is just another manipulation of the “truth” that helps us explain what we see. And yet we never stop trying.
It’s human nature, our irrepressible curiosity that keeps us searching. It’s the same reason the fear of having my ideas challenged won’t stop me from taking a new course. The only way to not feel deceived time and again is to be aware of these manipulations. It’s about knowing that no matter what I learn, I shouldn’t accept it absolute and no matter how much I know, I’ll never really know. To me, that’s a humbling thought.
When I teach first year I tell it like it is. Or, more truthfully, as I see it. There is no desire to deceive and I try give a visualization of what happens at the microscopic.
ReplyDeleteI think Akritee's comments about the evolution of knowledge is very good. That is what happens to students who study physical chemistry and profs who do research into the area. Ideas are always in a state of flux and evolution. The more we think and the more we read, the more insight we get. I do not think there is a plan to deceive, but some things are left out. Teaching students the math of the Hydrogen bond should come after the description. I alway say to students: "There will be things you come across you cannot answer. Do not forget those questions and keep then in your head. One day, perhaps, it will make sense and then science moves on."
As honest as we are as teachers and as careful as we are to tell it like it is, we are also human and describe science in a way we hope is correct. However in the end, science is an attempt to describe Nature and Nature is always a step ahead of science.
Hi Dr. Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot for your comment. We had a similar discussion in my physical chemistry class too. There is controversy among educators themselves, apparently, about how certain concepts should be taught in intro courses. We also read this paper
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ed100155c
from the journal of chemical education regarding hybrid orbitals. Some educators are in favor of it because of 3 major arguments that the paper presents and then defends against.
I agree with you that educators don't mean to give inaccurate information. Some facts simply need to be disguised in favor of allowing students to build up the capability of understanding complex materials which we will perhaps encounter once we move up in the subject area. For eg. my Real Analysis course finals last semester had a whole section that was based on proving how certain concepts we learned in calculus are, in fact, inaccurate. I also think that this system works. I cannot imagine beginning Chemistry with the Schrodinger equation, even though it turns out to be pretty fundamental.