Reversing Science Education

<p> It's been a while since last time I grabbed a school book about science, but judging how university books and programs are structured, there is a lot of room for improvement. </p> <p> My main concern is that <a class="wikilink" href="/education_is_not_curiosity_driven/"> education is not curiosity driven </a> . Therefore, what would happen if <a class="wikilink" href="/science_education/"> science education </a> reverts completely their programs? You don't teach math because physics will need it, you start by a problem that needs the math. </p> <p> I am not sure how it works for very young people, but teenagers have already been exposed to a lot of things in the world. For example, a bouncing ball that loses altitude after each loop. Or switching on/off a light bulb with a switch. Or even simpler, a piece of paper falls slower than a pencil. Just trying to understand that puts you in a great path for discovery. </p> <p> Education does not need to follow a historical approach. We don't need to keep thinking in building knowledge just because, but in justifying that knowledge. I do believe it would make a much more lasting impact. I do also believe that for it to make sense, you should not split the disciplines. There should be only one: Science (or better: Curiosity). </p> <p> Even books and subjects at universities are structured in the exact opposite way than real life works. I don't study a lot of math to try to understand why the moon orbits around the earth. I first see it coming out from the east every day and start wondering if I can predict the position the next day. Then I realize the tides are synchronized with the moon, etc. </p> <p> I've heard once that <a class="wikilink" href="/science_only_works_in_the_class_room/"> science only works in the class room </a> . Why not taking it outside then? </p>