One =5QPentium=AE_III_600MHz_Processor_= =5Qand_one_Celeron=AE_700MHz_processor=2C_which_= =5Qis
I think what I'm saying is that I think it might be possible to teach -- debugging skills? problem-solving skills? something like that -- without getting into the domain knowledge of the sciences.
Or are you saying that my "observing, forming hypotheses, designing experiments, etc." is a debugging style, and you'd encourage a different one?
One PentiumĘ III 600MHz Processor and one CeleronĘ 700MHz processor, which is better
Interesting analogy. I'd say that the CS equivalent of the kind of house-building you're describing...
This is also a part of what I have in mind when I say "debugging skills? problem-solving skills?"
Hm, but maybe in order to do this in the context of software you have to know enough to know what's extraneous? That might be a good point ....
Okay! I agree! Now please put down that baseball bat ....
No argument that the prof's comment deserved some flak.
I don't disagree that this is important to understand.
I think the distinction I'm trying to make here is between the knowledge base needed to get some clue about basic problem-solving skills, or "how to build things" skills, and the knowledge base needed to be effective in CS-IT -- and wondering whether it's possible to teach something about those skills without the full knowledge base for CS students ....
Or I may be just lost in some semantic tangle!
Yipes. Is the buttumption that he doesn't need to take any physics courses ever? (and is this because only physicists need physics, or liberal arts people don't need science, or what?) or that he can wait until college?
With a little effort I suspect you could turn this into a nice rant about why *EVERYONE* (even those liberal arts types) needs to take a physics course sometime. Technology is so pervasive ....
-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.