Re: [Phys-l] nature of science

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

"BTW is the tomato a vegetable or a fruit?  How about a Zucchini?  They are
never in the fruit section, but technically they are fruits [YES], according to
some definitions.  Students have no confusion over this!  What is the
difference between a flower and a bloom?"

There's no confusion according to my HS bio teach.  A fruit is a ripened ovule, period.  Bloom is short (anglicized) for Blumen Ger. for flower, i.e. no diff.  JC's example of foreign accretion.


more recent definition(s):

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:pvcY9x0hHCUJ:www.ibiblio.org/openkey/Openkey_glossary.doc+mellon+nut+ovule+fruit&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 <http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:pvcY9x0hHCUJ:www.ibiblio.org/openkey/Openkey_glossary.doc+mellon+nut+ovule+fruit&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3>


Check out nut, ovule, angio / gymnosperms, vegetative, etc.


bc, who wonders how other ethnicities classify these, also puzzles why tomatoes, being sweet are not also thought of as fruits while the bitter fruit quince is not a vegetable.



John Clement wrote:

> Unfortunately this attempting to formulate exact meanings for
> sociological/psychological concepts.  Certainly one can distinguish between
> hypothesis and theory.  An equation is defined by its form.  But a law or
> principle are often indistinguishable.  The English language makes subtle
> distinctions between almost synonyms because we have accreted similar words
> from many languages.
>
> In the end the common historical usage will be used simple because that is
> familiar and it is what people expect.
>
> The work theory is so fraught with common usage that it should probably be
> dropped from classroom discourse in favor of the term model.  This
> acknowledges that it is a human construct, and at the same time removes the
> "it is only a theory" concept.  It also gives us a word which more
> accurately describes what we do.  We build models of nature based on
> physical observations.  As such it also excludes all supernatural
> explanations.
>
> By all means, we should agree on general definitions, but they will never be
> exact.  And texts should emphasize that these words helpful descriptors, but
> should not be tested.  If we can't agree whether Newton's gravitational
> equation is a law or a theory, how can we expect students to make such
> distinctions.  By all means we should try to fight the idea that theories
> turn into laws...
>
> BTW is the tomato a vegetable or a fruit?  How about a Zucchini?  They are
> never in the fruit section, but technically they are fruits, according to
> some definitions.  Students have no confusion over this!  What is the
> difference between a flower and a bloom?
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
>  
>
> > I have always wondered why we have Newton's/Snell's Laws but
> > Bernoulli's/Archimedes' Principles. I feel this discussion is important,
> > but it is confusing for students. Hypothesis, theory, and law should have
> > distinct meanings and be used properly.The Big Bang is only a theory and
> > can never be "proven," but Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has
> > worked very well and has never been disproven.
> >
> >    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>