I believe that if you read a scientific paper of your interest and you really understand what it says, can extract conclusions, and even discuss it with the author it is evident that you understand it
I am an engineer and perhaps I can understand some of what a mathematical papers says and even able to read the mathematical formulas, but if I don't understand what the author wanted to express, his conclusions, and reasonning, probably my capacity of understanding is limited
Dr.Nolberto, apart from reading scientific papers. I was discussing in general, I can handle you a topic and after that you said you mastered it. So, how did you know that you mastered it ? What tests do you do to test your understanding of the topic ?
Hello Mostafa,
You may periodically test your knowledge by solving questions. There are a huge amount of question banks over the internet with many questions that cover many disciplines. Most of the question banks also provide solutions to the questions.
Dr.Mohamed, I find it difficult to obtain such Qs. Are there specific websites I can use to test my knowledge?
The best way to find a relevant question bank to your discipline/topic is to search the Google with "..... question bank" where the..... are to be replaced by the desired topic. Good luck
Dear Mostafa
In your initial question you asked how to test understanding scientific concepts, not mastering it, and my answer referred to that. I doubt that there is a test that can say that you have mastered something, which also means that you have nothing else to learn from it.
My reasoning is that probably you will never know if you have investigated and understanding every piece of a problem when there could be many uknowns. Just as an example although not wholly related to scientific issues. It is supposed that IBM knows something about electronic devices, however it asserted some decades ago:
"The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most." -
IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959
Look at this also: 'Es imposible que vuele una maquina más pesada que el aire” Lord Kelvin- Presidente de la British Royal Society, 1895
Human kind assumed for centuries that there are only three dimensions, until Einstein showed that there at least four. Until him thousands of phycisists accepted blindly the three dimensions, and you can't assume that this people were precisely ignorant
In my modest opinion you are posing a question that don't have an answer. Who knows what is behind a scientific discovery?
Dr. Nolberto, I was asking about testing a scientific concepts because I found a difference between reading something, and watching someone who teach it. I have noticed that watching someone teaching the same topic that I read it is superior to just reading it, so I thought there is a difference. That's why I was asking for a way such that I can identify weak points in my understanding so my way of studying a subject is strong enough to eliminate any weaknesses.
Dear Mostafa
I agree with you in the sense that if you first read on something and after that you listen somebody explaining the same subject, there is a difference, and in my opinion it enhances your knowledge of the issue.
For me this is natural, and I understand that, watching someone explaining you received his 'value added' which can specialy contribute in clearing aspects that perhaps you did not understand that you did not consider.
This is of course my own appreciation and probably without any value; I am not trained in human interaction and let alone in learning.
Normally, I follow the inverse procedure, that is, I tried to research for my self and consult a lot of other peop0le works when I get a doubt on a special point.
Regarding what you said, most definitely, and in my case at least, I detect weak points in my understanding and the way to elimminate them is by more research and more consultation to what other people say
I don't know if there is a way to elimminate my weakness, however, when I understand something, especially in applied mathematics, and put in to work in an example of my own, and if it works, I might be convinced that I am on the right track
Dear Nolberto Munier
I agree with you.
Saludos desde Barcelona.
As a historian of religion, I use several criteria of authenticity to distinguish that which can be known beyond reasonable doubt from that which cannot. These criteria include multiple independent attestation, dissimilarity, embarrassment, form criticism, and coherence.
Scientific research with specialization is the closest to the mind and the heart and comes to a lesser extent those that deserve to learn
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics