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] |
At 11:18 PM 2/17/2007, you wrote:
Since Burgan is not in science, perhaps the best response to hereditorial
was published by her peers:
<http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/index.asp?key=992>
Thanks to someone who posted this on another list. Hake hardly needed to
rebut the editorial.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
This sentiment of John's is puzzling. Am I to conclude that a
professor of teaching/learning at PenState(Berks), is the peer
of a non-science person, and so does not qualify for him as being
"in Science"?
She appears to understand the concept of controlled experiment
- though it be of liveware: she refers to the literature at every
assertion.
I ask myself then: just what DOES qualify as science: someone
who weaves elaborate theories of the unobservable? - as it might
be strings or the events at the first millisecond of creation?
It is a puzzle.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l