Re: contribution of mathematics...

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

I want to echo a lot of what Donald said about math

> > My point is that we need not describe relationships in algebraic terms,
> > i.e. as formulae, in order to describe them in quantitative terms, and
> > that there is a middle ground, a quasi-quantitative way of describing
> > relationships that allows a certain rigor, but may be approachable to
> > more students, than the abstruse (to some) short hand of algebra.

> Bob's comment motivates me to compare this to what has been often said
> here about physics. I have occasionally asked, playing the Devil's
> advocate, "Why do we think physics courses are good for everyone?" This
> rouses physics teachers to respond "To deny students the joys and values
> of physics is unconscionable and unthinkable."

Several other responses often involve something regarding reasoning and 
problem solving skills; I often add that taking physics helps in learning 
how to math in the process and teaches math!  How often have we heard from 
students that they learned their math in a physics course; (do not construe 
this as saying that math courses aren't teaching math, rather I think they 
lay necessary ground work which the physics course then "spirals back 
upon").

> But, by advocating no more than quasi-quantitative instruction in physics,
> aren't we denying students the joys and value of learning mathematics as a
> powerful conceptual language? Aren't we passing up an opportunity to show
> them examples of the power of mathematics as a thinking tool? Why do we so
> easily accept that "Some students won't grasp mathematics above the
> rudimentary level, so why force them to do it?"

Ditto!!

Joel Rauber