A lot of people reason on a pyramid model of knowledge. This says all knowledge is built on top of more fundamental layers, with the foundation needing to be bigger than the layer above it or it will collapse. Biology is grounded on chemistry, which is grounded on physics, grounded on math. Our knowledge of physics can’t exceed our knowledge of math.
Except, this model doesn’t work at all. Knowledge isn’t a pyramid. In general, we’re almost always learning from the “middle” of something, with both more complicated theories and more fundamental theories being less well-understood than the central phenomena we started with.
A clear example of this is science itself. We have tons of scientific knowledge. The pyramid approach would say that this must mean we have an ironclad theory of how scientific knowledge is produced. Except we don’t. We have some theories of science, but they’re a lot shakier and contentious than the actual science we created.
Classroom learning tends to be based on the pyramid model. Instead of working directly with a practical example, it argues that we should start by teaching a more abstract theory from which all practical examples can be derived. Learn the rules of conjugation before sentences. Learn Newton’s laws before trying to guess at some practical results of physics. Learn computational theory before coding.
Not all classes are this extreme, but the pyramid model still has a dominant influence in academic learning. Apprenticeships, in contrast, often ignore theory altogether. Which is good, because the theories often aren’t as accurate as the practical knowledge anyways.
