Re: [Phys-l] calibration

["Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>]

On 08/07/2007 03:20 AM, Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:
> > although the original samples may have been made with specific
> > compositions, the operation of the meter will take a known
> > resistivity and predict the composition.  Hence resistivity really is
> > the independent variable, and composition is the dependent variable.

> You don't want to go down that rabbit-hole.  Yeah, I know people 
> have been taught since third grade to distinguish "dependent" 
> from "independent" variables, but that doesn't make it right.  
> This is a distinction found in schoolbooks but not in the real 
> world.

I think I do want to go down that rabbit hole.  

While I agree you give a wonderfully sophisticated view of treating relationships as P(x,y), getting an upper-level science student (let alone a typical high-school student) to appreciate the subtleties would be a tall order.  This article seems to be aimed at an audience somewhere in between.  In such a case, I think "dependent" and "independent" are reasonable ways to think of the situation.  Let's get the students to master the idea of p = f(rho) (and many will have a hard time makiing the jump from y =f(x) to p=f(rho) ) before takeing your next step.

Or look at it this way. You took a page or two in give an brief explanation to practicing PhDs.  Perhaps a more basic approach is appropriate to a more basic audience.


Tim F