Re: terminology: period vs. wavelength

[Chuck Britton <britton@NCSSM.EDU>]

At 3:50 PM -0500 6/30/01, Tim Folkerts,  you wrote about Re:
terminology: period vs. wavelength:


> These discussions of terminology seem to keep coming up - "period", "simple
> harmonic motion" "weightless" "heat"....  I don't usually get involved, but
> I DO think that terminology is important.  Not that I expect a student to
> be able to spout back the exact definition of every word or law in the
> book, but that such definitions are available should clarification be
> sought.  A lawyer can find the exact definition of "grand theft auto", a
> pharmacist doesn't have to debate what "codeine 100 mg t.i.d" means.  Why
> should physicists keep arguing the same point over and over?  When we
> discussed "weightless" some time ago, it wasn't that the various sides
> didn't understand each other, but rather that each side thought it had a
> better definition.  Why not slug it out, pick a winner, and then accept the
> results?  Unless new evidence or insights have been gained to necessitate a
> new definition, accept the consensus and move on!
Because by it's very NATURE, all science is tentative and incomplete.
Science does not (and CAN not) have an official final arbiter of correctness.

Language is the way we communicate our individual understandings of
things and, thankfully, English (even Amercan) has not language
police to stultify the evolving verbal communications!
--
 .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-
    \   /   \   /   \ N /   \ C /   \ S /   \ S /   \ M /   \   /   \   /
     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'
Chuck Britton                                   Education is what is left when
britton@ncssm.edu                               you have forgotten everything
North Carolina School of Science & Math         you learned in school.
(919) 286-3366  x224                            Albert Einstein,        1936