Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical

["Kilmer, Skip" <kilmers@greenhill.org>]

I think we are in agreement. I was responding to Bryan's thoughts about when simulations are useful. In the Navy, we had pretty realistic simulators, and we used them to perfect tactical skills, rather than pure, vfr flying skills. My original question was about the relative value of simulated vs "real" physics labs in the classroom. I have a gut feeling that they are both useful, based on 34 years of teaching physics, but I hoped to be able to read something more data intensive than my gut can provide.
sk

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:06 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical

But, Skip, isn't the context of the flight simulator wuite different?
1. When I got in a simulator, I already new how to fly and could relate
the simulator responses to those of a  real aircraft.
2.  When, as happened more than I care to remember, I screlwed up in the
simulator, I not only survived to screw up another day, but I could remind
myself that in real life I might not get the second chance.

I'm not convinced that  the flight simulator analogy is applicable to the
classroom.
                                Regards,
                                        Jack




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Kilmer, Skip wrote:

> Thanks Brian. I know that simulators can be quite effective in learning to fly, particularly fly instruments. I wonder, though, if students have the same trust in concepts they struggle to piece together using simulators vs. the "real thing". Certainly they have their uses, (e.g. Interactive Physics scenarios) especially in tightening up relationships hinted at in lab investigations.
> skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Whatcott
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical
>
> This is in the nature of an anecdotal response to Skip's question which
>  may possibly shed a little light.
>
> Late last century, I needed to model the observable effects of
>  using some test equipment on a  Navy trainer (simulation).
>  The equipment in question was a time domain reflectometer,
> and a frequency domain reflectometer, which were (are?) used
> to check aircraft signal cables operating at high frequencies.
>
> It was not difficult to code an arbitrary signal generator with the noisy
> spectral response that the data was intended to represent, with a
>  peak or dip at a particular frequency intended to define the ltransit time
> and hence cable length to a discontinuity.
>
> The time domain reflectometer display was also suitably presented
>  (I thought), with steps representing impedance changes at the
> required variable distance and value and reflections and  junctions
> and terminal impedance....
>
> A Navy user was not impressed however - the time domain was far
> too clean for his taste.   So then with the appropriate injection of
> quasi random noise, the customer was satisfied.
>
> This tale is meant to show that a simulation can portray more clearly,
> more simply, than the real thing.
> But what gains in clarity, loses in reality. There is a balance.
>
> Brian W