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] strange things in chem book



There is a lot of wiggling around here with names, but generally a law is considered a pattern of observations, and a theory is an inference which contains explanatory power. So in that sense, a theory cannot become a law and vice-versa.

My spin on N3 is that it is a correlation, objects interact, equally on each other. I don't see the explanatory part of N3, could you say more?

Boyles law shows the correlations between pressure, temp and volume, but the molecular theory creates an explanation in terms of small non-interacting particles.

On Sep 13, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Turner, Jacob wrote:

Ok. As I re-read my own response when it arrived I did think of one of the counter-examples to a law just being a math formula. Newton's third is far more explanation than formula.

But the other 99% of the time... That distinction works pretty well, and fights the "just a theory" mindset fairly effectively.

Jacob Turner - (208) 885-2730
Director of Physics Laboratory Education
University of Idaho

On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:30 PM, "Turner, Jacob" <turner@uidaho.edu> wrote:

Yes. There is a lot of small details beyond just "an explanation of how something works."

But look at your own response. You shot down the book/me with "A theory is not just an explanation.". But 2 sentences later say "it is the best explanation we have for a given phenomena"

So to sum up the rebuttal: "it isn't an explanation, it is an explanation"

I am not belittling you. What you say is absolutely correct.

But the way that the book lays it out is thus far the agreed upon best way to state for a still developing mind (just now starting to handle abstraction and mutability) what a theory is without leading them headlong down the "well that is JUST a theory" path.

The part about "theories do not graduate into becoming laws" is the other half of trying to defeat that stance. Laws ARE straight equations with no explanations. Theories are explanations and not equations. Typically theories are in places an equation doesn't even make sense to exist (evolution) or places where there is also an equation, but the theory goes beyond that (gravity) or provides a method of approximation (none come to mind, but it feels like I know of some)

So for what can be just in print... Those are what work best. You need to remain concise in print. But those also lean heavily on the instructor to impart the extra bits like you did in the response below.

Jacob Turner - (208) 885-2730
Director of Physics Laboratory Education
University of Idaho

On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:17 PM, "David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu> wrote:

A theory is not just an explanation. It is a model that has competed with other models via predictions
and experimental validations. In the end, only one model survives and it is the best explanation we
have for a given phenomena... as close to truth as we get in science. We all know that a theory may
require altering or be discarded, if new information comes along. However, we do not ever want to
give the impression, as is the public view, that a theory is just an explanation or a guess. That kind of
thinking makes it easy to dismiss a theory, such as The Big Bang or the Modern Theory of Evolution.



On 13 Sep 2012 at 20:02, Turner, Jacob wrote:

Standard High School approach. Semantics are frequently argued though.

Personally I would say that Theory should be reworded to say "a theory is an explanation of how something works". And theory cannot become a law amended to say that some laws and theories come in a pair (both explain/model the same thing).

Table thing is new to me. But sounds like a personal preference deal. It does match how most Chemists like to work from my observation. But not how I have seen most physicists want things.

Jacob Turner - (208) 885-2730
Director of Physics Laboratory Education
University of Idaho

On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:57 PM, "Paul Lulai" <plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us> wrote:

Hey.
I am teaching gen chem for the first time in years (high school). The book says some strange things:
a hypothesis is a prediction with an explanation.
a theory is a how we think things work.
a law is a mathematical model for prediction.
a theory can not become a law.
a data table should only include raw data. it should not include any calculation, not even subtraction of two collected values.
These statements seem to be a bit odd. Am I alone?

Have a good one.
Thanks for your input.

Paul Lulai.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5267 - Release Date: 09/13/12



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Physics
Co-Director
Northern Indiana Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Collaborative
574-276-8294
inquirybellina@comcast.net