Do the flaws in education discredit the discpline being taught?

The most obvious example that comes to my mind is the Bohr atom. This is still a standard in many phsyics and even chemistry textbooks, or at least it was while I was at school.The model is widely recognised as an inaccurate, possibly even misleading, representation of an atom. Of course that doesn't stop it being an immensely informative model for explaining any number of features of the atom.TTFN,WK

What part of 'other subjects' did you not understand?TTFN,WK

Do you really mean exaggerate? Could you give an example?I can see the benefit of focusing very narrowly on something but I'm not sure what one could justifiably exaggerate except perhaps for the importance of a paticular topic.TTFN,wK

I think that it is not a problem for the disciplines standing. What is taught has been through the mill of digestion of the various processes involved in developing a standardised curriculum for young minds, it iis not representative of the academic research communities latest findings or even extant paradigms.Certainly if all that is done is to teach 'facts' by rote then if these facts are incorrect the student will have absolutely no worthwhile grounding for study at the level of higher education, and indeed many universities already claim this is the case and that their 1st years often have to be taught how to approach a topic virtually from scratch. So the probelm for the disciplines is a rather ill-informed and ill-prepared pool of students from which the next generation of researchers must be drawn.If on the other hand what is being taught is a methodology and an approach to research and critical analysis of various sources then the actual 'facts' are relatively unimportant, as the student will be adequately equipped to re-evaluate them in the light of new evidence. I fear that this is rarely how teaching is approached in primary or secondary education however.TTFN,WK