Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
1. At some particular level, it is often the case that more than one
description of a phenomenon or class of phenomena will work equally well.
Isn't it a waste of time to argue over points until we decide what level
students we are talking about and have some realistic idea what their
experience and initial conceptions are? It is entirely possible that for
many students at the introductory level the points we argue are esoterica
with no logically necessary basis in _their_ experience with the phenomena
(including what we show them in class). Hence, the relevance and
significance will not be meaningful at all.
Insisting that our students accept a more complicated explanation for their
experiences than their experiences (including those we provide in class)
'logically demand or support' is a kind of training which is _exactly the
opposite_ of what we wish, namely: accept this more complicated explanation
for which you can see no logical requirement because We say it is True.
So, whether they are non-science majors or they are physics majors, this,
it strikes me, is not something I, and I hope others, would ever want a
part of.
2. Do we have _any_ justification for being so arrogant as to insist that
we are so absolutely in the possession of Truth that we can take the
responsibility of dictating language and "stamping" what we do not like
out? The history of physics certainly does not justify such a position.
3. Do we have _any_ evidence that the insistence on using particular words
has any significant effect on the thinking of any significant number of our
students concerning the nature of the phenomena? This has been advocated
and practiced many times before, but one could argue that what we
accomplish is turning people off to us and our profession more than
instilling in them any of our 'Truth.'