Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

> You are as always free to define terms however you choose,
> but please be aware that other may choose differently.

> In particular, if you want to define some sort of _net weight_
> or _effective weight_ and explain in a footnote that it includes
> a buoyancy term (as Michael H. did), then I am 100% OK with
> that.  The rule here is simple: Say what you mean and mean
> what you say.

If you are talking among physicists or physics educators, or  
relatively advanced physics students, then I would agree with you.  
Such an audience can understand an effective weight. But since this is  
a physics education listserv, I would think we would want to use terms  
that one would use in the average classroom. Even though we expect  
people in this current discussion should be able to follow (with  
careful explanation of the "new" definition) any non-standard  
definition, I see the very real possibility of many taking something  
explained here directly to the classroom. Coming up with one's own  
definition of weight (operational or otherwise) cannot help but  
confuse the average student. For the classroom, I believe one should  
use the simple definitions provided in classic texts by classic  
educators. And no, I'm not completely sure what a classic educator  
is. ;o)



Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.


On Nov 7, 2010, at 6:34 AM, John Denker wrote: