Re: [Phys-l] weeds in the garden (was: Ballistics)

["Jeffrey Schnick" <JSchnick@Anselm.Edu>]

As usual you make good points.  There is nothing wrong with using
scientific words.  Thinking that using scientific words is what science
is all about, is, however a problem.  Regarding the water rocket:  If
you asked the 8-year old the next day, "Why do we need the water?" and
the 8-year old explains in her own words (with or without the word
"momentum") the role of the water, then you are all set.  If the 8-year
old proudly responds, "Because of momentum," and cannot elaborate, then
you have a problem.  (I suspect that you actually get the former
response.  If so, way to go!)

Regarding the weeds in the garden.  I have no plan for preventing them.
I think people should be familiar and facile with the non-technical uses
of words such as momentum and energy. (Perhaps we can think of them as
marigolds in the vegetable garden.) Also: I too am a proponent of
familiarizing people with the words in a physics context before they can
appreciate all the nuances.  Still, in the course of a series of
conversations about a physical process, I think it is often best to help
the very young learner arrive at an understanding of the concept in
their own words, and then to help them arrive at an understanding of the
physics jargon, based on their understanding of the process.  As a
regular and unabashed non-adherent of the "idea first, name later"
dictum, I am in no position to argue for its exclusive application.
Still, I think it's a good thing to keep in mind when talking to
children.

John Denker wrote:
> > > If energy is the
> > > right word to express what I mean, I don't see why I should look
> > > for a circumlocution or euphemism.  Ditto for momentum, force, and
> > > other technical terms.

I agree with you strongly here.  I think such substitute words/phrases
can and do interfere with learning and communication.  Admittedly, I did
use another word in the place of force, but I didn't have to look for
it, it came naturally.