Why-And Dichotomy

From Education & Academia. De novo BMJ article.


 * An observation that there are two ways to teach:
 * Starting with first principles and repetitively asking "and what significance does that have?" until you reach a model of the real world ("AND...", for short)
 * Starting with a real-world observation and repetitively asking "why is that the case?" ("WHY???", for short)
 * My belief is that the WHY??? is more powerful than AND....
 * Humans are intrinsically human-centric and therefore practical, they are interested in their world. Now this need not be the real-world--it could just as easily be a fantasy world of a story or the abstract world of Euclidean plane. But their mind is energised by the possibility of finding out new relevant information about their world. However, as a result (of this assumption), we note that WHY??? is inescapably practical, because it starts with the real-world, whereas AND... will only energise the mind if the student is already invested in the fantasy abstraction or they see light at the end of the tunnel (i.e. practical application of the knowledge)
 * However, AND... is still very useful, because often WHY??? reveals gaps in our knowledge and the curiosity train grinds to a halt. Furthermore, it makes the WHY??? process much less effortsome, because it provides the raw materials to the WHY??? questions.
 * Hence I proffer the illustration of the British and French teams of the Channel Tunnel project meeting in the middle. The most effective way to teach is to consciously identify whether you are dealing with the real-world and working downwards, or from first principles upwards. Then you must decide what is the optimal balance, in light of the necessity to stoke human curiosity, and the differing ability of AND... and WHY??? to achieve this in different contexts.