More comments in Lieu of an actual post…
Saturday, May 27th, 2006I saw this article on Digg, and I think that it’s completely rediculous. I think we need more teachers like that one, and not fewer. If kids bring guns to school, that is certainly a problem- but we’re talking about a teacher. A teacher, who brings a rifle to school in order to demonstrate physics. As long as safety precautions are taken, then it sounds like a good idea to me. Too much of physics, especially to high school students, is theoretical and has no basis in the real world. Here we have an honest attempt, and it sounds like it’s working, to get the students interested in the material that they’re learning about. If there is one problem with education, I’d say that it’s probably that students aren’t always interested in every subject, and as a result they don’t learn as well. I would have the parents sign a permission slip ahead of time, noting that nobody has ever been hurt and that it is very safe, and call it good. That way, any parent with an objection shouldn’t have a problem, and the other kids can still get a good education. Besides, we’re not talking about elementary school or middle school- this is high school, 16 or 17 year olds, the males of which have to sign up for the draft once they graduate and could legally be forced to shoot a gun to kill another person. Hopefully it won’t come to that, but still the point is made that as long as it’s being used constructively, and in a safe manner, parents shouldn’t just freak out because it’s a gun.
The other thing was I wrote this response to a post on Scott Adam’s blog: There are three types of knowledge availiable to humans: Knowledge learned from observation, knowledge learned from society, and knowledge engrained in genes (let me know if I missed anything).

Knowledge from observation isn’t necessarily correct - looking at a puddle you may think that there is nothing living in it, but there are millions of bacteria there - and so observational knowledge can convince someone of something that isn’t true. The advantage science has, is that experiments don’t seek to prove things- they seek to disprove things. Once someone comes out with a microscope and shows you the bacteria, your theory must be changed or discarded. Also, the repeatability constraint of science improves its accuracy. However, it is still not infallible. But anyway…
Knowledge from society isn’t necessarily correct, either. By this I mean everything you learn in this category is learned from other people, who could lie or be deluded themselves. So obviously socially learned knowledge can convince someone of something that isn’t true.
Thus, by any way of obtaining knowledge there is fallibility and room for someone to become convinced of something that isn’t real. Since we are all people, it is possible that each of us believes something that isn’t true. As for how easily we will each change our beliefs… well that’s just the definition of stubbornness.