Re: [Phys-L] feeler-dealer, third law, et cetera

[Craig Wiegert <wiegert@physast.uga.edu>]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:12:24 -0700
John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

> Calling it a 
>        "lack of reciprocity for magnetic forces"
> is silly several times over.  First of all, if we are talking
> about the third law, please let's call it the third law.  If we
> are talking about conservation of momentum, please let's call 
> it conservation of momentum.  Calling it "reciprocity" is kooky
> jargon.

Oh, come now.

If your goal is to ensure Newton gets credit for his Holy Laws, then by
all means make sure students learn them by number.  I know from
experience just how few of them understand which numbered law
corresponds to which physical principle.  By contrast, my students who
learn the Matter and Interactions style of "kooky jargon" have no
trouble recognizing and applying the principle, and at the end of the
day can still attribute it to Saint Isaac.

Is "reciprocity" is the problematic word?  Maybe "Pairwise Principle"
would be better; it has a nice alliterative punch.  

Not all kooky jargon can rhyme as neatly as "feeler-dealer", after all.

  - Craig