On one hand I agree with you, but I can also see that you can’t let every class decend into a debate about the material. Unless you have the time to build every “scientific fact” up from the evidence that led to it (and you don’t) you’ll forever be having arguments against every idea coming out of a bunch of 10 year old’s heads.
So you teach it all as solid fact, and then add the nuance later when they’re older. Trouble is, a lot of people either didn’t really understand the impact of the nuance or didn’t connect the dots back to the things they were taught early on.
As for the maths thing, consider that maybe…just maybe…they were teaching you a more advanced technique using a simple example. You didn’t need that technique for the simple example. You needed it for the next part of the course, but you learnt it before you needed it so you understood it when you did need it. You didn’t understand that because you only saw what was Infront of you.
On one hand I agree with you, but I can also see that you can’t let every class decend into a debate about the material. Unless you have the time to build every “scientific fact” up from the evidence that led to it (and you don’t) you’ll forever be having arguments against every idea coming out of a bunch of 10 year old’s heads.
So you teach it all as solid fact, and then add the nuance later when they’re older. Trouble is, a lot of people either didn’t really understand the impact of the nuance or didn’t connect the dots back to the things they were taught early on.
As for the maths thing, consider that maybe…just maybe…they were teaching you a more advanced technique using a simple example. You didn’t need that technique for the simple example. You needed it for the next part of the course, but you learnt it before you needed it so you understood it when you did need it. You didn’t understand that because you only saw what was Infront of you.