Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

Perhaps, Fernanda,  it is better to say,

"Thank goodness that Thomas Edison had the perspicacity to subscribe
to Scientific American, so that when his research staff read the
experimental finding of Swann's,  (who used a carbon filament to make
 a short-lived incandescent lamp), they were able to cease their
mindless testing of plausible materials in favor of a published
improvement?"

Brian Whatcott


At 10:08 PM 5/8/2004, Fernanda Foertter [Advanced Physics Forums] wrote:
> so you'll continue doing it your way until something is published?
>
> thank goodness Thomas Edison didn't think that his candles we're enough...



> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)
>
>
> > Thank Goodness for John Clements, who reminds us time and again,
> > that no matter how plausible & attractive  the teaching initiatives -
> > (e.g. to demonstrate problem solving cold - complete with warts) -
> > if there is no experimental improvement shown, then there is no
> > scientific  basis for a method.
> >
> > Brian Whatcott
> >
> >
> > At 05:08 PM 5/8/2004, John Clements, you wrote:
> > >In all of this discussion there has been no firm evidence presented
> > >that any  of these methods actually improve problem solving.
> > >In the case of Feynman I think we should remember that he said
> > >that his lectures were a failure in
> > >that they did not improve student understanding of physics.

/snip/

> > >John M. Clement
> > >Houston, TX


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!