Blog number seven, number three on partner`s reading content.

I start to look at page 360 at the end of the chapter. There are terms from the chapter, as well as questions. This gives me a chance to see what I have learned. I look at the definition of a wave which reads, "A wave is a rhythmic movement that carries energy through space". What does that mean? I hate the fact that we take something so beautiful like a wave, and explain in such a matter of fact way. The definition takes all the life out of the magical word wave. Aristotle believes that a word has meaning in and of itself. He does not believe a word needs context. I say the word wave to myself. I begin to say the word louder. My brother comes down the stairs and tells me to stop screaming. Yes, it's true a word does have meaning in and of itself. The word wave is such a strong word, but when given context or when it is defined, it loses all of its luster. 'Water waves form as wind blows across a body of water" I picture the waves crashing at the shore, the Gods are mad. I see romance in the air as a man and woman walk holding hands on the beach as the tide comes crashing at their feet. Then I look at the definition and don`t see any of that. I just see, yet another explanation taking away all magic from the beautiful masterpieces this planet has to offer.


"The height of a wave depends on the speed of the wind ,the distance over which the wind blows, and the length of time the wind blows". Has the wind ever seemed less powerful than it does while reading that definition. I am not knocking science. Science is beautiful. It is us. It is life. However when its being taught, can we not insert some of that life into it. It makes me think of the New Rhetoric style of teaching writing. This philosophy believes that knowledge or truth is not static, but a result of interaction between opposing elements. It believes that language helps create truth. therefore I wonder if we use different language in defining these science terms, would it then change the meaning. The truths of today become myths tomorrow.

"Tides result from the gravitational pull of the Moon and the Sun and the Earth". I knew that. I recall reading that earlier in the chapter. I feel a sense of pride and achievement in knowing that definition. There is something good that comes from learning information that one had no knowledge of previously. However I just feel that there are many ways to teach facts, and they do not always have to be handed to students as absolute truths. Textbooks too often speak in absolute truths, and there is no absolute truth when it comes to science or anything else for that matter. The world was flat and now it is round. The Earth is the center of the universe and now it is not.

I start to look at a question. "Identify the parts of an Ocean wave". I recall the Crest is the highest point of the wave and the trough is the lowest part of the wave. Does that make me right. I am not sure, but I am going to give myself two in a row. It comes to me what a great thing it is to learn. What a great thing it is to read. How lucky I am to be able to read. I can see how some can say my points of view seem to be changing from word to word. I agree, but so what. My truth changes as I read, and then changes again as I write. There is no need for it to come together, but rather only a need to write the truth as it is the moment its felt. At least that is the way I feel about writing, which once again goes back to the New Rhetoric style of writing. I care more about the questions I know, than the ones I don`t know. That is something that I think is true of all students of all ages, a student will always be more interested in things they know, rather than things they don`t understand. Therefore success or failure of teaching comes down to making the students believe they know the information even before they do. Reading the summary and the questions really got me going on a rant, but I hope that is what this whole process was about.