| 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] |
Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:
IMHO, "F causes ma" is a very helpful rung on a climb onward toward
understanding physics.
Can you explain why it is helpful?
The idea that equality is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive "should" be
introduced in 7th grade (possibly sooner), and "should" be pretty well
consolidated before students reach HS physics ... let alone college
physics.
So please explain why introducing a new (and incorrect) asymmetric notion
"F causes ma" has even a chance of being easier than using the existing
symmetric notion "F equals ma".
Equality is a much simpler notion than causation. Why use something
complicated
as a rung on the climb to something simpler? That violates the most basic
pedagogical principles.
Also: the idea that equality is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive is so
fundamental and so important that reinforcing it in physics class is
valuable
... and conversely, undercutting it with a needlessly asymmetric re-
intepretation
of what equations mean is destructive.
I understand that students throw around words like "cause" and "effect",
but
do they really have the slightest inkling of the technical meaning of the
words? They also arrive with nontechnical notions of "heat" and "force"
and who-knows-what-all-else, but we do not normally accommodate those
notions;
we do not let the inmates run the asylum.
The choices are
a) Accommodate and reinforce wrong ideas about cause and effect,
b) teach the correct meaning of cause and effect, or
c) avoid those terms and stick with established ideas of equality.
I judge (c) to be easiest and most correct; (a) to be almost as easy
but destructive, and (b) to be difficult distraction, beyond the scope
of the typical course.