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]

Re: [Phys-l] Falling Bullets--What is the question??



I've also been reading the bullet thread, but not responding, and I have
had thoughts similar to those put forth by Richard Grandy. Richard has
said it very well and I am not sure I can improve on it other than to
say... Ouch! (and touche, and thanks).


Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of
rgrandy@pop.mail.rice.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:30 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Cc: rduschl@rci.rutgers.edu
Subject: [Phys-l] Falling Bullets--What is the question??

Please pardon the brief intrusion of a philosopher with only a minor in
physics and an interest in philosophy of science education, who has
long lurked here appreciatively and silently.

It seems to me that the original interesting question* has been lost in
a muddle of quibbles about formulations of the problem and ad hominen
carping.

Here is a proposed reformulation of the original very interesting
problem:

Consider a bullet fired from a (revolver/rifle--I will return to
this) with zero horizontal velocity from the surface of the earth with
no restriction at the muzzle and no interfering ceilings, etc.

If this bullet* , when it returns to the surface of the earth strikes a
human being (in the skull, in the shoulder--I will return to this) what
is the result?

The answer may depend on the initial muzzle velocity of the
revolver/rifle, the size of the bullet, and it may depend on where
in the body (see above) the missile strikes on its return. Relevant
answers should address these parameters.

MetaComments:

Of the twenty plus responses to this initial query, very few addressed
the basic question(s). Most focussed myopically on defects in the
formulation of the question, but did not contribute toward a more
precise formulation of the initial question to contribute to better
understanding nor contributed to answers.

If you think that a question is not well formulated, your best
professional response should also include either what you think is a
better formulation, or an explanation of why the question is
ill-conceived. Responses that criticize but don't contribue to
progress on these issues are less than optimally productive. I believe
that our profesional obligation is not only to criticize but also to
attempt to move the field forward.

One view of the field is that our sole obligation is to drag our feet
when someone seems to be moving toward falsehood; but another, more
optimistic, view is that we should try to contribute to moving toward
(approximate) truth.

I certainly don't have the expertise to answer your specific questions,
but I am convinced that if your community does not work better
collectively you neither will nor should have ANY leverage on science
education.


Richard Grandy
Philosophy & Cognitive Sciences
Rice University
Houston TX USA*

*Where many holidays lead to many firearms being fired skyward.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l