Re: [Phys-l] Work and Energy: which first?

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

OTOH -- in analogy to ontology recapitulates phylogeny *  I think an 
historical approach in teaching Physics is valid.

bc, thinks this oughta provoke JD.


* of course discredited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_and_phylogeny


p.s. pan balances only recently superseded by strain gauge types.



John Denker wrote:

> Marc "Zeke" Kossover wrote:
>  
>
> > As Professor Denker says, it is a matter of taste.
> >    
>
>  
cut

>   Note that I mention this *after* having argued on physical and
>   pedagogical grounds that the foregoing is reasonable, and having
>   said at the very start that other approaches are also reasonable
>   and are a matter of taste.  I don't want anybody to think that I
>   am suggesting that the energy-balance argument is recommended
>   (let alone required) because of its antiquity.  Forsooth I would
>   put the opposite spin on it:  I would say it is quite uncommon to
>   see ancient technology and ancient pedagogy remain viable so long.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>