Re: [Phys-L] thoughts on how science is done

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 07/08/2014 06:05 AM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:

> Here's an article, What Is Science?, I found online two years ago:
>
> www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html

Yes, that's a classic.

I like the general drift of the article, but I disagree with 
Feynman on a couple of points.

1a) His point about names is overstated. 
 ++ We agree that knowing the name of a thing is not a substitute 
  for understanding the thing.
 -- However, if you know the name it helps you /look up/ information
  about the thing.
 -- Knowing the names speeds up conversation between people who
  know the names.  Think about the word "mouse".  It would be
  very unpleasant if I had to explain what a mouse is, every
  time I wanted to use the term.

  Terminology exists for a reason.

1b) Speaking of names:  I'm pretty sure that the reference to 
 the "Fitz-Cronin" was meant to refer to /Fitch/ and Cronin. 
 This proves Feynman's point that he paid no attention to names, 
 but it also illustrates my point that he went too far in this 
 direction.  Cronin and Fitch are real persons, and they probably 
 don't appreciate having their connection to the work trivialized
 in this way.  Ten years after the NSTA address, the consensus was
 that the work (and their connection to it) was highly nontrivial:
   http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/nobel/nobel_80.asp

2) Physics teachers tend to get dogmatic about the assertion that
 "the ball does not run to the back of the wagon".  That's true
 in an unaccelerated reference frame, but in the frame comoving
 with the wagon, the ball most certainly does run to the back.
 In the introductory course, there are good pedagogical reasons 
 for focusing on unaccelerated reference frames ... but that
 does not mean that accelerated frames do not exist.  People
 very commonly use frames comoving with their vehicle, and
 rightly so.  Even physicists do this, and have done since Day 
 One of modern science (1632).  Everybody knows that accelerated 
 frames exist, and if we pretend they do not, people will think 
 we are insane.  Indeed, according to the modern (post-1915) 
 understanding of physics, the ordinary lab frame is an accelerated
 frame, accelerating skyward at 9.8 m/s/s.

 I have no objection to using the usual Newtonian approach in
 the introductory course;  I just think people should be more
 explicit about their assumptions:
      /If you analyze it in the lab frame/ the ball does not 
      roll towards the back of the wagon....

3) There are two different definitions of energy.  Both are 
 in common use.  Both are super-important.  If we pretend that 
 one is right and the other is wrong, people will think we are
 selfish and narrow-minded, if not completely insane.

 Also this seriously interferes with learning:  Students are
 taught one definition of energy for years and years, starting
 in third grade ... and then suddenly in high-school physics
 we foist on them a new and different definition.  Actually
 it's worse than that, because even as we require them to use 
 one definition in class, they are seeing and using the other
 definition outside of class.  No wonder they are confused.

    Sometimes it can be even worse than that, if the /teacher/
    does not clearly appreciate the distinction between the 
    physics energy and the Department-of-Energy energy, and 
    expects students to learn definitions that are self-
    contradictory and inconsistent with experiment.

 Constructive suggestion:  Rather than pretending conflicting
 terms and concepts do not exist, we should acknowledge them 
 and then explain how to /distinguish/ them:  "This is the 
 physics energy, this is the DoE energy, and here is how you 
 tell them apart."

 The DoE energy corresponds to some notion of "available"
 energy.  Feynman ridicules this, but I say it is important.
 People start wars over it.  People like it so much that
 they are on course to make the planet uninhabitable on
 account of it.  If you choose to say this is outside the 
 scope of the introductory physics class, that's OK ... 
 but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.