V_V and Vaniver both make really good points, but the fact is that the U.S was not built to be completely rationalist, and people in general are not rationalists.

It's a communal set of rules for a people and a place that's designed to give the members the most freedom while still ensuring stability and order. And it has a really good track record of success in doing that.

I agree that it's not an optimal solution in a future, ideally rationalist world. But it's not a tool for teaching children to think for themselves. It's a tool to get them to follow the social rules. And I'll tell you, children want their own way and DO NOT want to follow rules. And if you let them have their way all the time you WILL spoil them. There's a time to teach rules-following (especially rules that protect liberties and freedoms) and a time to teach mistrust of authority and rules-breaking.

What other device would you propose for a future, ideally rationalist world? I'm not being fecetious here. I'm curious. Spawned by the Wierdtopia idea, can you think of a better solution?

I personally think of it as like teaching an apprentice. Apprentices weren't taught the why's. They were taught the how's. As a journeyman and a master you discovered the why's. Kids are apprentice citizens.

This is actually has been a problem with real-life examples. I've read that the oaths in NAZI Germany were specifically to Hitler himself, and that many members of the military felt bound by their oaths to obey orders, even when it was clear the orders shouldn't be obeyed. I think the critical danger is in giving oaths to an individual (any of which have a very real chance of being corrupted by power, unless they take action to prevent it).

I see the difference that the U.S. pledge of alliegence is to the republic and it's symbol, the flag. The saving factors to prevent abuses of power are:

The focus on alliegence to the nation as a whole, including all it's members, it's leaders, and it's ideals.

The "with liberty and justice for all" line, which is the guarantee of what the State offers in return. The U.S. has to be worthy of the alliegence.

The extreme other war example is the U.S Civil War, where many military officers left the army to join the Confederacy. They formed ranks and marched right out of West Point because they opposed the U.S. leadership. And the soldiers who stayed let them go, knowing they were going to help the seceding states fight. Even if they disagreed, it was felt the honorable thing to do was to let them go.

This idea shows up specifically in our military training and culture in the definition of lawful orders. The military culture and legal rules define your duty to obey all lawful orders from your chain of command, up to the President. So that if you feel that an order is unlawful it's actually your duty to disobey. Now, of course, that carries with it all the weight of being the first one to be the opposition, so it's no guarantee to prevent abuses of power, but it does exist.

I gues my point is that the danger is in making oaths to a person.

I agree that it's a form of indoctrination for children. But as long as the trade of alliegence and freedom it describes is a true and real one, I think it's a good thing to keep those principles in their minds.

I completely agree with you that an accurate answer to a student is "I don't know"

But teaching in general, and PhD's in particular are specifically trainined never to say that. I mean look at how much effort they have to put into proving that they DO know. Oral examinations are NOT a place to say "I don't know." Just in general smart people don't like to say it, and authority figures don't like to say it. But I've heard it said that the one thing a PhD will never say is "I don't know"

A great story about that from the opposit direction is one about astronaut John Young. Apparently he would ask instructors question after question until he reached "I don't know" and if he never got to it you would never gain his trust.

Is it important? Yes.

Should teachers say it? Absolutely.

Is it one of the hardest things for people to say? Oh yes. I mean, even my kids teachers never say it. I've met with my son's teachers a lot over the years, and I ask tons of detailed questions. It's really, really hard to get them, or any authority figure to say "I don't know."

I tell my kids lots of things. They ask me all kinds of questions and I give them all the info I've got to give. They're like me and keep asking more and asking more. I did that so much growing up (and still do!) that I annoyed the heck out of people with my questions. So I'm generous when my kids do it and don't get frustrated and keep giving the next answer I've got. Eventually I get to "I don't know." I've started saying things like "That's one of the mysterious scientists are still trying to figure out" because I've said "I don't know" so much that it's gotten monotonous.

My point is that it's not surprising to me that a questioning student gets frustrating answers from frustrated college professors. Even if the best answer in a perfect world should have been "I don't know."

True, but college professors are often not expert teachers. I agree that ideally all teachers should be experts at understanding what the student is asking, but they often aren't. Having a PhD means you have great depth of knowledge in your subject, but teaching skills only have to be acceptable, not stellar. And this question is an uncommon and challenging one. It doesn't surprise me that he got answers that he personally felt didn't answer the question. In one of the other splinter conversations that came out of this post someone told me that the answer to the question in relativity is an actual true unknown. Which means no average college professor would be expected to be able to answer.

As far as asking questions that deliberately lead the students the wrong way, I only think that's acceptable if you VERY SOON tell them why, and what the real circumstance is. If you're trying to teach people to challenge assumptions, yes, I agree, it's a very valuable tool.

Thanks for the comment. I was fascinated by the question he had, and still am.

<scratches head> Maybe I don't.

I think I do. I think I have a general, summarized, understangin of how gravity works. I would say I have a starting point of knowledge, and If I ever need to get more specific to solve specific problems, I know where to go research the details, and then run experiements to solve a specific problem. Or to challege the Fake Explanations.

I'm not set on Relativity, for example, and I don't accept it as some kind of gospel. I love thories that try to poke holes in Reltivity. The day I posted this I read about several that tried and were demonstratably worse at predicting reality that Relitivity.

As far as I can tell my mental map of the universe works pretty well, but I'm ok to revise it if that turns out not to be true.

I'm putting this out there to clarify my understanding and get comments on it, so I accept your comment, but how would YOU phrase your answer to the question of how gravity works, in a better, non-Fake-Explanation way?

Or, alternatively, how would you rewrite my answer in a better, non-Fake-Explanation way?

Because if you mean that I need to send up my own Gravity Probe B to verify frame-dragging before I can help other students try to understand gravity, you're out of luck. I'm planning on trusting teir results. (although I have to admit to being a bit disappointed when they confirmed Einstein instead of challenging him! <grin>)

Thanks!

I wouldn't be able to answer using Newtonian gravity, I've never seen the theory explained (that I remember). I see more reading in my near future.

I obviously don't understand the words "dissipative force" in the same way you do. I thought I had that part down too. I thought it means that the energy you are concerned about is getting changed into energy not useful to you, like "waste" heat. So then friction would be dissipative. Please point me in a direction to learn more.

I'm not a physicist, but I am an engineer interested in things like this. I've wondered this kind of question too.

After a bit of online research, I think I understand it well enough to explain it. Since DaFranker, EY, and shiminux all seem to know, I'd like to run this by you and get your edits.

Question: "Where the frak does gravity get its power source?" Answer: "It's not really a source like a battery or a motor. What you're seeing is the changing of energy from one kind to another. The fact that masses curve space creates a way for the positions of potential energy to be changed into the motions of kinetic energy. Since it's not a dissipative force like friction there's no need to keep "pushing power into the system" like with a car's motor or an airplane's jet. Just like a spacecraft only needs to fire rockets at the beginning and the end to change direction and doesn't need to keep engines going all the time to stay moving. Oh, wait, you weren't talking about the equations of power, right? If that was it I'll need to go read up some more." <grin>

Upvotes! I've had the space travel and the gravity pieces of the puzzle for a long time. A special thanks to shminux for mentioning potential and disipative forces. That's how I was prompted to come to an answer.

Also, this really seems like a question that needs to be dissolved. I think it's based on a misunderstanding and not a real problem. That may be why professors have a hard time explaining it - there isn't a power source for gravity in the sense that was being asked.

Made the post more interesting to read.

Although I see what you're saying, I still disagree. I don't think that we are just inside the algorithm feeling it happen, making us not knowing the outcome and only being observers.

I definitely have a decision loop and input into the process in my own mind. Even if it's only from outside the loop: Dang, I made a bad decision that time. I'll make a better one next time, and then doing it.

And until I take physical outward action the decision algorithm isn't finished. So people can be paralyzed by indecision by competing priorities that have closely similar weights to them. Or they can ignore and not take any choice and move on to other activities that render the previous choice algorithm nebulous and never finished.

I would like to give a more detailed refutation of the idea that our minds have deterministic algorithms. Until you take action it's undetermined, and I think there's choice there. But I don't have the background or the language.

Can anyone suggest further reading?