Charles Weller, Esq. 314 MAGNET Innovation Center

1768 East 25th Street. Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Tel. 216-496-0836 weller1@nxgh.net

July 4, 2015

National Crisis and International Opportunity: Teach A Core Competency for the 21st Century –

Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking – Think Solutions With Case Studies

Contents

I. National Crisis -- Content Memorization K-16 is a Cancer Deadening A Core Competency of the 21st Century: Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking

II. International and U.S. Opportunity – Teach A Core Competency for the 21st Century’s Global Applied Knowledge Economy and Society: Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking A. Why Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking is A Core Competency for

the 21st Century -- and Opportunity B. What Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking Is: Does the Theory or Idea Work With The Facts, and Does It Make

Sense? C. What Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking Is Not

1. Omitting “Ugly” or Using Fabricated Facts 2. Consensus 3. Expert Opinion 4. Peer Review 5. Government Approved Science 6. Memorizing Math-Science Factoids

D. Examples of Scientific (Problem Solving) Thinking (and Not) 1. Einstein’s Nobel: The Photoelectric Effect Rejecting Newtonian

Theory 2. 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Daniel Shechtman 3. Michelson-Morley Rejecting Newtonian Theory 4. Dr. Semmelweiss and Childbed Fever 5. Galileo and the Inquisition

III. Breakthrough Opportunity for the U.S. and the World: Teach A Core Competency for the 21st Century – Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking -- With Case Studies

Attachments

“Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College,” NYT (May 13, 2012)

“Generation Jobless,” WSJ (Nov. 7, 2011

“The Kids Are Not Alright: Youth Unemployment is the Global Economy’s Ticking Time Bomb,” Bus. Week (Feb. 7, 2011)

“The Lost Generation,” Bus. Week (Oct. 19, 2009)

“Student Loans Outstanding Will Exceed $1 Trillion This Year,” USA Today (Oct. 25, 2011)

“The Slow Disappearance of the American Working Man,” Bus. Week (Aug., 28, 2011)

“U.S. Loses High-Tech Jobs as R&D Shifts Toward Asia,” WSJ (Jan. 18, 2012)

Mike Porter’s Two Tools for Prosperity and Jobs in the Global Applied Knowledge Economy

17

I. National Crisis -- Content Memorization K-16 is a Cancer Deadening A Core Competency of the 21st Century: Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking

In Blueprint for Jobs in the 21st Century (April 2011), 300 of the major employers in the world reported that there is a “national crisis” in the U.S.

o “Chief human resource officers are seeing a lack of basic workforce competencies among many of those entering the workforce at all levels, including those with [college and] master’s degrees.”

o The “national crisis” is that high school and college “graduates do not have the basic literacy and numeracy skills to function properly in the contemporary workplace."

o Another “key element of the basic competencies” employers “too often” find lacking is “the ability to think critically, analytically, and with imagination," as U.S. K-16 education over the last 20 years has been “redefined” to emphasize content and memorization, but not teaching students how “to think about what problems are important and why” -- problem solving (scientific) thinking.

o “Today, too many college graduates are discovering that simply spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars getting an undergraduate or graduate degree is no guarantee that there will be a job available upon graduation.”

Dr. Bruce Alberts, past President of the National Academy of Science and current Editor of Science magazine:

o “The failure of students to acquire …problem-solving skills … goes a long way to explain why” employers “are so distressed by the quality of our average high-school and college graduates, finding them unable to function effectively in the workforce.” (Science, Jan 23, 2009).

o “There is a disconnect at the heart of the U.S. education system that is having a devastating effect on how and what children learn” -- “factoid-filled textbooks,” with “an unending list of dry, meaningless names and relationships to be memorized.” (Science, Dec. 12, 2012).

o “Rather than learning how to think scientifically [problem solving], students are generally being told about science and asked to remember facts." (Science, Jan 23, 2009).

Laszlo Bock, the senior vice president in charge of hiring for Google, stated matter of factly that most people in the labor market do not have “the ability to learn things and solve problems,” an analytical ability that is “the first thing Google looks for” when hiring. “Analytical training gives you a skill set that differentiates you from most people in the labor market.” Friedman, “How to Get a Job at Google, Part 2,” N.Y. Times (April 20, 2014).

Heather Wilson, who has been on Rhodes Scholarship selection committees over 20 years, has “become increasingly concerned in recent years” in the course of interviewing some of “the best graduates of U.S. universities.” Her concern is that

o “the education American universities are providing” these “high-achieving students,” and thus other students as well, makes them “less

18

able to grapple with issues that require them to think across disciplines or reflect on difficult questions about what matters and why.

o “our universities” are failing “them and the nation” by not “teaching them to think about what problems are important and why.” Heather Wilson, “Our Stunted Scholars,” Wash. Post (Jan. 23, 2011).

The bad news, unknown to most adult Americans who have deferred to those who set K-12 curriculum, tests and texts, is that over the last 40 years American K-12 inner city and suburban curriculum has gone the opposite way. While these Asian countries are headed to the “Top of the Class,” American K-12 pedagogy is headed to the “Bottom of the Class.”

Memorization, conventional and ideological thinking is now the norm, mandated by a combination of state education department standards, SATs, ACTs, and the AP exams. SATs, ACTs, APs, state education department K-12 standards, international tests and textbooks are overrun by subject content requirements.

Subject standards have run amok in American K-12. As one student told me, K-12 schooling is all about “disconnected factoids.”

Bill Gates is one of the few education reformers who have looked in detail at American K-12 curriculum standards. His opinions are startling:

"I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow," "America's high schools are obsolete" and are "ruining the lives of millions

of Americans every year." "If we keep the system as it is, millions of children will never get a chance to

fulfill their promise. That is offensive to our values, and it's an insult to who we are."

Most stunning to me as a former math and physics teacher are the AP exams for math and science. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council reported the following startling findings about the AP exams for physics, chemistry, biology and math:

“Although the [AP and IB] programs emphasize the importance of higher-order learning and thinking, the amount of content to be covered and assessed ....tends to encourage rote memorization rather than conceptual learning.” Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools (2002), p. 231.

“Even students who prefer to seek understanding are often forced into rote learning by the quantity of information they are asked to absorb.” Id., p. 120.

"The perceived need for comprehensiveness and the single high-stakes exam of the AP program in particular encourage teachers to promote rote learning in order to cover all the necessary material" [Id., Biology, p. 235]

"Both the AP and IB examinations emphasize assessment of what is easily measured: rote learning of facts and concepts, rather than what is most highly valued -- hierarchically structured conceptual knowledge and understanding of scientific processes." [Id., Biology, p. 235]

AP exams for the humanities similarly emphasize vast amounts of content and thus memorization and rote learning, rather than thinking.

7

19

Personally, through pro bono work with an inner city Cleveland Public School I found that Ohio mandates about 3,000 K-12 standards, most of which are subject matter content.

International tests, the metric so often used to compare U.S. students with their peers internationally, are doubly flawed just like the AP, SATs, and state education standards. They mostly test subject content, but do little testing of problem solving thinking.

American students are reported to have dreadful results, but what the tests mostly measure is subject knowledge. American students’ subject knowledge is weak compared to countries like Malaysia and Singapore that start students specializing in math and science in 7th - 9th grade. For example, at Yale I took physics with calculus as a college sophomore. My Malaysian high school seniors, however, had physics with calculus for four years.

However, contrary to what is usually reported, when scientific thinking is tested and reported, which is rarely, there was no difference between American and Chinese college freshmen as to scientific thinking in one study Science magazine reported:

“Comparisons of U.S. and Chinese freshmen college students show differences on tests of physics content knowledge, but not on tests of scientific reasoning.” Bao et al., Science (Jan. 30, 2009), p. 586.

Testing is not the problem. The problem is what the test tests. Rick Levin’s article explains this well:

“Examinations at top U.S. universities rarely call for a recitation of facts; they call on students to solve problems they have not encountered before or to analyze two sides of an argument and state their own position.” Thus, what the AP, SATs and international tests primarily test is subject

knowledge, not problem solving, even though, in Rick Levin’s words, “subject-specific knowledge” is of “little permanent value” in “today's knowledge economy.” My 50 years since college completely confirms what Rick Levin wrote. I use problem solving every day. I have used none of the subject knowledge I learned K-12 in over 43 years.

And this problem, the emphasis on rote memorization of subject content and the decline of teaching problem solving, is getting even worse.

A second dysfunctional disease that has swept American K-16 education since the 1970s is political correctness. Tony Kronman, former Dean of the Yale Law School, described “political correctness" as a set of "intellectually ruinous ideas" that “has dominated the humanities for the past forty years," that has been "disastrous" for the humanities, and "even worse for the wider culture.” Kronman, Education’s End (2007), Chap. 4 Political Correctness, pp. 137-203.

Benno Schmidt, a former Yale President, warns that, “Political correctness and ‘speech codes’ that stifle debate are common on America's campuses,” making “the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind.” Schmidt, “Mitch Daniels's Gift to Academic Freedom,” Wall St. J. (July 31, 2013).

In summary, the current American and worldwide emphasis on rote memorization, and in the U.S., political correctness, deprives people of all ages, and actually cripples, the problem-solving abilities that is crucial to their, and their country’s, economic future in a Global Applied Knowledge economy. Memorizers and

8

20

regurgitators of content will have little to offer, and respond like deer in the headlights, when asked to solve new problems presented by new facts and opportunities.

Peter Drucker warned that education dominated by memorization deadens the “capacity to do anything new, to imagine anything new, to perceive anything new,” and that “we are, I am afraid, on the same road” that led to “the decline of the world’s most creative, most advanced, and most exciting civilization” -- China in the 14th century.

Further, the high rate of unemployment and economic distress in the U.S. as well as worldwide is startling and dangerous. “An increasing number of people in the world are miserable, hopeless, suffering, and becoming dangerously unhappy because they don't have a good job -- and in most cases, no hope of getting one.” Jim Clifton, Chairman of Gallup Inc, The Coming Jobs War (2011). See “Youth Unemployment is the Global Economy’s Ticking Time Bomb” (Business Week Feb. 7, 2011), “The Generation Jobless” (WSJ Nov. 7-12, 2011) and other attachments to this paper.

The urgency of finding new solutions to the economic distress of many people in the U.S. and worldwide is underscored by a chilling reminder from the past:

the "Nazis’ rise to power” demonstrates the “connection between economic distress and perverse social and political development.” Benjamin Friedman, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth (2005).

“the ‘despair of the masses’ … plunged Europe into Hitler’s totalitarianism.” Peter Drucker, The End of Economic Man (1939, 1995)).

the "desperate economic situation" was the "major reason for Adolf Hitler's election as chancellor of Germany in 1933." Benjamin Bernanke.

Solution?

II. International and U.S. Opportunity – Teach A Core Competency for the 21st Century’s Global Applied Knowledge Economy and Society: Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking

A. Why Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking is A Core Competency for the 21st Century -- and Opportunity

Peter Drucker:

o We live in an “Age of Discontinuity” unlike any change in 300 years, driven by the change in our economic foundations to a global applied knowledge economy

o “The foundations have shifted under our feet,” as fundamental a shift as the shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy a century ago

o “Knowledge has become the central economic resource” in the new global applied knowledge economy

o This new economics and society needs “an infinite number of people” who are “capable of using theory” for “practical application in work” -- problem solving (scientific) thinking.

"The potential for wealth is limitless because it is based on ideas and insights, not fixed because of scarce resources." (Michael Porter). Examples:

Apple was worth $1 billion in 2003. Now it is worth more than Exxon and IBM – over $500 billion.

21

Google did not exist 10 years ago, today has revenues of $30 billion and is worth nearly $200 billion today.

“Apps” did not exist 4 years ago. They are projected to be a $40 billion business in two years (70% of which goes to developers).

Parker Hannifin Corp., a Cleveland based manufacturer, threw out a near century of conventional cost-plus thinking and pricing, and has greatly benefitted by focusing instead on solving specific customer problems and customer value.

Entrepreneurship is “the most significant and hopeful event to have occurred in recent economic and social history." (Peter Drucker)

However, unlike the last century’s Industrial Age when it took years to build a plant and product life cycles were long, the knowledge economy moves incredibly fast:

“Every three years or so, the enterprise must put every single product, process, technology, market, distributive channel, not to mention every single internal staff activity, on trial for its life.” (Peter Drucker).

How to survive and prosper in such a fast changing world?

Problem solving (scientific) thinking – it empowers people to solve new problems in a fast changing world. Thus it is a core competency for the 21st Century and major opportunity for people, the economy and society worldwide.

What exactly is scientific and problem solving thinking?

What is not scientific and problem solving thinking?

How to teach it to as many people as possible, at any age, anyplace, quickly?

B. What Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking Is: Does the Theory or Idea Work With The Facts, and Does It Make Sense?

Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking is not to be confused with any other method of thinking, including what is often referred to today as “critical thinking.” Its importance is captured in unforgettable words by Alfred North Whitehead:

“Since a babe was born in a manger, it may be doubted whether so great a thing has happened with so little stir.”

Einstein explained the two controlling rules of scientific thinking:

“Physical theories try to form a picture of reality and to establish its connection with the wide world of sense impressions. Thus the only justification for our mental structures is whether and in what way our theories form such a link.” A. Einstein & L. Infeld, The Evolution of Physics 294 (1938) (emphasis added)

That is, the controlling test in scientific thinking is simple, but profound:

Does the theory or idea work with the facts?

Does the theory or idea make sense (i.e., is it intellectually rigorous)?

22

Whitehead explained in what way scientific (problem solving) thinking is fundamentally different from two other well known methods of thinking, empiricism and theoretical:

“This new tinge to modern minds is a vehement and passionate interest in the relation of general principles to irreducible and stubborn facts. All the world over and at all times there have been practical men, absorbed in 'irreducible and stubborn facts; all the world over and at all times there have been men of philosophic temperament who have been absorbed in the weaving of general principles. It is this union of passionate interest in the detailed facts with equal devotion to abstract generalization which forms the novelty in our present society.” Science and the Modern World (1925), pp. 2-3.

Not just theory.

Not just facts.

But both, with the theory or idea applied to all relevant facts -- and the facts controlling. If the theory or idea does not work with the facts, the theory or idea is rejected.

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, elaborated:

[W]e compare the result of the [theory’s] computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is -- if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. The Character of Physical Law (1965), p. 150. William Happer, a Princeton physics professor, similarly explained:

“Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions about what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor our understanding and weed out the theories that don’t work.”

As to weeding out theories that do not make sense, he gives the example of the theory or idea that a rooster crowing at dawn explains the sunrise:

“Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.”

Newtonian theory about the motion of the sun and earth makes more sense, thus the rooster crowing theory or idea is rejected.

Simply put by Leon Lederman, a Nobel Laureate in Physics:

“Progress often involves the killing of an exquisite theory by an ugly fact.” The God Particle (1993), p. 256.

This is the key to science and problem solving. It is also in stark contrast to what is far easier, and unfortunately, far too common: changing or rejecting the facts when they do not work with the theory or idea, and keeping the favored theory or idea.

23

What is Problem Solving Thinking, a core competency for personal and community prosperity and solutions in the 21st Century’s global applied knowledge economy? Simply scientific thinking applied to problems outside science.

Rick Levin, the President of Yale University, explained it incisively:

“In today's knowledge economy, ... it is not subject-specific knowledge but the ability to assimilate new information and solve problems that is the most important characteristic of a well-educated person.*** the ability to adapt to constantly changing circumstances, confront new facts, and find creative ways to solve problems.” (Rick Levin, "Top of the Class: The Rise of Asia's Universities," Foreign Affairs (May 2010)(emphasis added).

An extensive example of Problem Solving Thinking is everything Peter Drucker wrote.

In summary, the controlling test in science and problem solving thinking is: “Does the theory or idea work with the facts, and does it make sense?”

Simply stated: “does the theory or idea work, and why?”

By contrast, memorizing formulas and factoids, expert opinion, consensus, peer reviewed or government approved publications, and using only supporting or fabricated facts are examples of what is not deferred to or controlling in science and problem solving, explored next.

C. What Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking Is Not

1. Omitting “Ugly” or Using Fabricated Facts

Scientific (problem solving) thinking requires deep factual curiosity and vigilance. Anyone who changes or ignores facts contrary to their theory or idea is committing a cardinal sin in science and problem solving, as the determinative focus is on whether the theory or idea works with the facts and makes sense.

Richard Feynman, the Physics Nobelist, explained:

“[A] principle of scientific thought … [is] utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it *** Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (1985), p. 311.

Thus “scientific fraud consists of an explicit and well-defined act: faking or fabricating data or plagiarism.” On Fact and Fraud (2010), p. 132, by Physics professor and former CalTech Provost David Goodstein.

Accordingly, when bad facts are changed, hidden or ignored to make a theory or idea work, in science and problem solving the theory or idea -- and its proponent – are rejected. What should happen when someone violates the fundamental rules of scientific (problem solving) thinking?

The classic example of manipulating, fabricating and using only favorable facts, and suppressing bad facts is of course Pravda. Unfortunately, Pravada is not alone. The recent incident of world renowned Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel illustrates what should happen. A Dutch committee found that Stapel made up or manipulated

24

factual data on an “astonishing scale.” Sometimes they found he would say had conducted experiments when he had not, and instead made-up the data, or he did do experiments but then manipulated the factual results. He was the “absolute lord of the data,” and when colleagues or students asked to see raw data Stapel gave excuses or even threatened and insulted them. The committee recommended that that the university that granted him his PhD consider revoking it, and the universities where he worked look into criminal charges against him. “Psychologist Accused of Fraud on 'Astonishing Scale,'” Science (Nov. 4, 2011).

As scientific (problem solving) thinking requires “the killing of an exquisite theory by an ugly fact” -- not the other way around (killing an ugly fact with a favored theory or idea), fabricating facts, or only using facts that support a theory or idea and not reporting bad facts is unacceptable in science and problem solving.

2. Consensus. Similarly, consensus, like expert opinion, is not the test and is not controlling in science.

“What is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, the consensus is often wrong.” (William Happer, Physics professor, Princeton).

Michael Crichton in his 2003 Caltech Michelin Lecture makes the same points with gusto:

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. *** There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus.

There are many examples. Galileo’s rejection of the consensus and accepted thinking that the sun was the center of universe when new facts proved otherwise is the best known example (discussed further below). Watson and Crick is a classic in biology.

Two recent Nobel prize winning examples of defying consensus are curing ulcers and this year’s chemistry prize. As to ulcers:

"If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The 'consensus' was wrong." (Ian Plimer).

This years’ Nobel chemistry prize is discussed below.

3. Expert Opinion. Expert opinion on a theory or idea is not controlling in science. Obviously expert opinion may be a good place to start, but it is not the controlling test in science and problem solving thinking.

What is controlling in science as to experts Richard Feynman stated clearly, quoted above -- whether the theory or idea “works” with the facts:

25

“If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is -- if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

He colorfully underscored the point that expert opinion is not controlling:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

4. Peer Review

The purpose of peer reviewed publication is to improve the rigor of the science involved. Professor Happer explained what peer review is supposed to be:

“A traditional way to maintain integrity in science is through peer review, the anonymous examination of a scientific paper by qualified, competing scientists before publication. In a responsible peer review, the authors may be required to make substantial revisions to correct any flaws in the science or methodology before their paper is published.”

However, the fact that a paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal or approved by government, like consensus and expert opinion, is not controlling in science and problem solving. Peer review, as government approval, can be a barrier to new ideas that are beyond the expertise or in actual financial conflict with the reviewers, Also, there is emerging a new web based method of doing the same as peer review that is faster and less expensive than peer reviewed publication. See “Cracking Open the Scientific Process,” N.Y. Times (Jan 17, 2012).

In any event, peer reviewed and some government approved publications may be great places to start, and to ask "show me." But they are not substitutes for the controlling test in science and problem solving: does it work and why?

5. Government Approved Science

Real science, of course, cannot be subject to or contingent upon government approval. The classic example and its dangers are Lysenkoism, Stalin’s choice Lysenko’s theory of genetics and agriculture and government political control of science. Lysenkoism is thus referred to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process by government. From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience," all geneticists were fired and all genetic research was discontinued.

6. Memorizing Math-Science Factoids. As explained above, scientific (problem solving) thinking is not, as Dr. Bruce Alberts, past President of the National Academy of Science and former Editor of Science magazine emphases, memorizing “boring, incomprehensible …factoids about science.” “Tragically,” he continues, we “have “failed to get real science taught in most of our schools.”

“Rather than learning how to think scientifically [problem solving], students are generally being told about science and asked to remember facts,” which leaves many “students with the impression that science is impossibly dull, causing many to shift to a different major.”

What is needed, instead, is a “laser-sharp focus on gaining the scientific habits of mind [problem solving] that will be needed by everyone to successfully

26

negotiate his or her way through our increasingly complex, crowded, and confusing societies” – a core competency for the 21st Century.

The reality is that the “failure of students to acquire …problem-solving skills … goes a long way to explain why” employers “are so distressed by the quality of our average high-school and college graduates, finding them unable to function effectively in the workforce.” (Science Jan 23, 2009, Jan. 20 & 27, 2012).

Bluntly stated, they are not employable in good jobs.

D. Examples of Scientific (Problem Solving) Thinking (and Not)

1. Einstein’s Nobel: The Photoelectric Effect Rejecting Newtonian Theory

In 1905, new facts had emerged that changed science forever. The greatest theory then known to science, Newtonian physics, failed to explain them.

“All of my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this knowledge failed completely,” Albert Einstein explained. "The ground had been pulled out from under us, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere.”

Then Einstein accepted the new facts and crafted an entirely new and different theory, now part of quantum physics. He was 26 years old. His theory explained the photoelectric effect facts, something 300 year old and revered Newtonian physics could not do. It was also the basis for his only Nobel Prize. (Walter Isaacson, Einstein 96 (2007)).

2. 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Daniel Shechtman

“He had to fight a fierce battle against established science ... His battle eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter.” Oct 7, 2011 Patrick Lannin and Veronica Ek, Reuters, PD.

3. Michelson-Morley Rejecting Newtonian Theory

Their experiment, in Cleveland, proved facts that led to the rejection of “ether,” a key part of Newtonian theory. This, in turn, led Einstein to think about and create Relativity Theory.

4. Dr. Semmelweiss and Childbed Fever

Childbed fever was a major cause of death for women in the 1800s. Dr. Semmelweiss, a young obstetrician, observed that the death rate for mothers seen by doctors was much higher than for mothers treated by midwives. He also noticed that midwives washed their hands. Doctors did not. He then rejected established medical practice and theory that did not work with these facts. He had people treating his patients wash their hands. The death rate dropped dramatically. Hand washing meant the difference between life and death for mother and child. S. Nuland, The Doctors’ Plague (2003).

5. Galileo and the Inquisition

Galileo is credited as having invented scientific thinking in the 1600s in the Western world. Richard Feynman explained:

“During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas … Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas -- which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it.”

27

The classic example of what scientific (problem solving) thinking is not is Galileo's "peer review" by the Inquisition. Galileo’s novel use of the telescope established facts that disproved the theory that the earth was the center of the universe. The Inquisition "peer reviewers" simply refused to look in a telescope to see the facts:

When Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the moons of Jupiter, whose existence seemed to refute the orthodox view that the planets were fixed to the surface of crystalline spheres, he was not being irrational. He was just refusing to play the science game, in which theories are required to conform to observations, to “the facts,” rather than the other way around. Richard Posner, Overcoming Law 7 (1995).

"Peer review" by the Inquisition thus was able to conclude that Galileo's factual findings that "the Earth is not the center of the world" and that "the Sun is the center of the world" were "absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because [they are] expressly contrary to Holy Scripture." Galileo was fortunate, unlike other Inquisition targets, to be allowed to recant his views rather than be burned at the stake, by writing:

"I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves *** [Therefore I] abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and [further] should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor."

Peer review by the Inquisition, of course, is an extreme example, but it underscores how scientific (problem solving) thinking's uncompromising focus on the facts is different from the method used by ideologues and other non-scientific thinkers by ignoring, doctoring, hiding or suppressing inconvenient facts that do not work with the favored theory or idea.

Also on scientific thinking, see also Peter Staudhammer (TRW Inc.’s top scientist at retirement) and Charles Weller, "Meta Education," in Porter, Staudhammer & Weller, Unique Value (2004)(cover attached).

III. Breakthrough Opportunity for the U.S. and the World: Teach A Core Competency for the 21st Century – Problem Solving (Scientific) Thinking -- With Case Studies

The great news is that there is an opportunity for an historic breakthrough that equips many people in the U.S. and worldwide with a core competency for jobs, prosperity and solving society’s problems in the 21st Century – problem solving (scientific) thinking.

The “Age of Discontinuity” we live in, driven by the tectonic shift to a global applied knowledge economy and society, can be what Peter Drucker calls an unprecedented “Age of Opportunity,” full of “fresh thinking, fresh policies, and a great outburst of creative energy in political thought and political action, and in educational thought and educational action, and in economic thought and economic action,” for at least four reasons.

First, Mother Nature has equipped everybody in the world with the brain of the problem solving scientist -- the left front cortex. However, society, including education curriculum that emphasizes memorization and regurgitation, can retard and suppress

28

natural problem solving thinking. But it does not remove nor destroy this part of the brain. The potential of this part of the brain remains in everyone.

Second, out of the box thinking and throwing out accepted ideas – problem solving (scientific thinking) -- is a special potential of the young. Einstein, when just 26 years old, as noted, threw out the most successful scientific theory of all time, at the time, widely accepted by a consensus of experts -- Newtonian physics -- because it did not work with the facts (the photoelectric effect). The great news is that the new majority in the U.S. is young -- more than 160 million Americans are under 40. They have more voting power (90 million) than the Baby Boomers (75 million). And every year their voting power increases by 4 million. This new majority is profoundly different from most Baby Boomers and people over 40 because they have been raised with interactive devices. As a result, they are “better prepared to deal with the challenges of the future than any other workforce before them.” (Beck & Wade).

Third, more great news. Worldwide, hundreds of millions are gamers. Gaming is great training in problem solving (scientific) thinking. The Economist, “Defending Video Games” (Aug. 4, 2005) explained:

“Games require players to construct hypotheses, solve problems, develop strategies, learn the rules of the game world through trial and error. Gamers must also be able to juggle several different tasks, evaluate risks and make quick decisions. *** Playing games is, thus, an ideal form of preparation for the workplace of the 21st century.”

Fourth, and the best news of all, is that the two controlling rules of what is problem solving (scientific) thinking, and what is not, are simple to explain and understand. No math and science content schooling, background, or aptitude is required to learn them. They are rules of thinking, like the rules of playing a game.

They are not well known simply because they are virtually never stated and explained in any depth to either (1) math-science majors and scientists, or (2) everybody else when they take mandatory courses in math and science.

The first group, math and science majors and practicing scientists, learn them by doing them, not by words. Virtually never are what they are doing put into words. But they use them daily. Richard Feynman admitted as much in a famous commencement address at CalTech:

“We never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation;” “we haven't specifically included it in any particular course that I know of,” we “just hope you've caught on by osmosis.” (Cargo Cult Science, 1974).

For the second group that does not major in math and science, their time in math and science courses is mostly spent covering specific content, not what is, and is not, the scientific method of thinking. They virtually never, if ever, examine in depth what the two controlling rules of scientific (problem solving) thinking are, and are not. Usually they are told that scientific method is testing hypotheses empirically. However, not much time is spent on what that means and, just as importantly, what it does not mean, such as memorizing formulas and factoids, or deferring to experts, consensus or peer reviewed publications.

Hence the extraordinary opportunity.

29

Today many issues are locked in very controversial ideological, political, partisan and philosophical debates that are not producing solutions. Applying problem solving (scientific) thinking to these issues can do two breakthrough things.

First, problem solving (scientific) thinking provides a fresh, new approach to these critical issues that is both credible and is an entirely different way of thinking than ideology, philosophy and politics. It is something new to learn, but its rules are not hard to learn. No math required. Given the “irreducible and stubborn” facts, does the idea or solution work?

Second, by using controversial issues, and making clear what problem solving (scientific) thinking is, and is not, a large number of people in the U.S. and around the world will be exposed to and learn this core competency for jobs, prosperity and society in the 21st Century by the resulting controversy and publicity.

For example, controversial and critical issues like

1. Examining the man made global warming issue, where consensus, experts and peer reviewed publications are usually cited in support of the theory that human activities like burning fossil fuel generating CO2 is causing dangerous climate change, by using the two rules of scientific thinking instead.

2. Fixing American education’s current domination by memorization with a core competency for jobs and prosperity in the 21st Century -- problem solving. E.g., solving the problems the National Academy of Sciences found with the AP math and science exams promoting rote learning K-12, rather than scientific (problem solving) thinking, which contributes to why so few Americans are competent in math and science for jobs, and why so few Americans choose math, science and engineering careers. Filling the large number of unfilled jobs in manufacturing (over 600,000), Ohio (over 70,000), Chicago and elsewhere with innovations in training K-16 and at all ages with current information from employers on opportunities and needed job competencies. See, e.g. Rahm Emanuel, “Chicago's Plan to Match Education With Jobs,” Wall St. J. (Dec. 19, 2011), Ohio Governor Kasich and Chancellor Jim Petro on closing the gap of unfilled jobs and training (Jan 2012), & the National Association of Manufacturers’ Manufacturing Skills Certification System.

3. Applying Drs. Esselstyn’s, Ornish’s and others’ scientific findings that heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other diseases are caused by a “toxic” Western diet and can actually be reversed, reduced and prevented by changing diet in many cases.

4. Examining why poverty programs in the U.S. and worldwide have failed repeatedly but keep being used, and replacing them with new ideas that are working spectacularly but are not being used instead:

Is Michael Schuman's The Miracle (2009) correct as to why Korea, Taiwan, India, Singapore Malaysia, Indonesia (the largest Muslim country and a democracy) and China, for example, over the last 30 years “have produced the most sustained economic boom in modern history” that “has brought unprecedented gains in wealth and economic opportunity to three billion people,” while poverty in our inner cities and Africa is no better if not worse? Can their lessons be used in the U.S. in our inner cities, and suburbs, Europe, Africa and elsewhere?

30

Is Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid (2009) explanation of why poverty efforts in Africa have failed so miserably and caused much of the violence there correct? Are her solutions a breakthrough?

Is C.K. Prahalad's The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid diagnosis of why 4 billion people are still living on under $2 per day correct? Are his examples of success from India and elsewhere and solutions sound? How to get them adopted?

5. Growing jobs and prosperity in the global applied knowledge economy with two new little known tools most everyone can understand and use. First, focus on adding customer value: “Why would someone spend their money with you, and what is unique about you?” (Sam Palmisano, I.B.M.) Second, focus on improving the local environment for jobs and prosperity, at all levels -- city, state and country. (Michael Porter -- see attached chart).

6. Fighting terrorism by focusing on raising the standard of living and economic opportunity of people in the countries involved, for example, by using the web and a new source of making money, apps, and other types of digital wealth.

7. Revisiting long accepted theories in history, as Yale Prof. Steve Pincus did in his 2009 book 1688, by breaking from super-specialization’s focus on the narrow facts relevant to the ideas of the specialty and applying a problem solving (scientific) focus on all the operative facts. He found new facts, including England’s fundamental shift in the 1600s from an agricultural economy with landed estates to a trading economy, that meant the long accepted theory of the Glorious Revolution in England of 1688 did not work and replaced it with a entirely new theory. Exploring facts neglected by a specialty’s theory about other countries and people can be a powerful way to maximize the promise of today’s global society captured so wonderfully by Alfred North Whitehead:

"Other nations of different habits are not enemies; they are godsends. A diversification among human communities is essential for the provision of the incentive and material for the Odyssey of the human spirit."

8. Updating the FDA drug approval process as Andy Grove recently suggested, using digital e-trials rather than the current 50 year old “byzantine” clinical trial system that produces merely 20 new drugs a year at a huge dollar cost and takes a long time. (Science, Sept. 23, 2011).

Just imagine the worldwide controversy and coverage that will result from examining in one or more schools, universities, government, the media and elsewhere one or more of these and other controversial and unsolved issues of our times, applying the two controlling rules of what problem solving (scientific) thinking is, and is not.

Given the high rates of unemployment and poverty in the U.S. and around the world, this core competency can equip many to seize the unprecedented opportunities of the new global applied knowledge economy and society. Isn’t this a way many people, of all ages, in the U.S. and around the world, can learn a core competency for jobs, prosperity and solving societal problems, quickly?

Think solutions: Does the Theory or Idea Work With the Facts? Does it Make Sense?

Simply stated: Does the theory or solution work, and why?

31

Not:

o memorizing math-science factoids o expert opinion o consensus o peer reviewed or government approved publications o using only supporting or fabricated facts.

The timing could not be better.

Nor more urgent.

32

CHARLES D. WELLER, ESQ. 314 MAGNET Innovation Center

1768 East 25th Street. Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Tel. 216-496-0836 weller1@nxgh.net

Education

B.A. Yale University Mathematics 1966

J. D. Case Western Reserve University

1973

Experience

Lawyer, 40 years legal experience in antitrust, health care and health benefit law in private law firms (Jones Day; Baker & Hostetler) and the Antitrust Division of the Ohio Attorney General's Office, including representation of General Motors, Wal-Mart, EDS, Newport News Shipbuilding, Eaton Corporation, Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve Medical School, Medical Mutual of Ohio, American Medical Association.

Principal, Patient Value, LLC

Peace Corps Volunteer, Math and Physics Teacher, Malaysia, 1966-

68.

Deputy Director, Peace Corps Recruiting, Southern Region, 1969-

70.

Selected Publications

"Free Choice as a Restraint of Trade in American Health Care Delivery and Insurance," 69 Iowa L. Rev. 1351 (1984) (Stanford’s Alain Enthoven: "a searchlight that illuminates 50 years of history of the health care economy," "I felt as if I was discovering Beethoven's Fifth Symphony").

Dr. Floyd Loop, retired CEO, Cleveland Clinic & Charles Weller, "A Practical Solution For Rewarding Efficient Providers," Health Affairs Blog (Dec. 23, 2009).

“The End of Criminal Antitrust’s Per Se Conclusive Presumptions,” 58:4 Antitrust Bulletin 665 (2013).

"The Supreme Court's New Antitrust Law for the Global Knowledge Economy in a 'Perfect Storm' of Danger--and Opportunity," 54:1 Antitrust Bulletin 157-231 (2009).

Michael Porter, Peter Staudhammer & Charles Weller, Unique Value (2004), including Chap. 8, “Math Science and Meta Education,” with Pete Staudhammer (cover attached).

MATH SCIENCE AND “META” EDUCATION

Peter Staudhammer

Charles D. Weller

Chapter 8, M. Porter, P. Staudhammer & C. Weller, Unique Value (2004)

Pete Staudhammer with Jim Lovell and the Rocket Engine

Used to Rescue Apollo 13 and Land Neil Armstrong on the Moon

Cleveland Museum of Natural History January 2002

Pete Staudhammer was TRW Inc's Vice President for Science and Technology, and the lead rocket scientist for the Apollo moon landing module's rocket engine, shown above. His role in the rescue of Apollo 13 and other Apollo landings as explained to fourth graders in the Cleveland Public Schools is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28IhhuTlmLM