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] |
"... makes it seem like a single person does all of the things"
"there are experimentalists and there are theorists"
"Guessing the outcome can introduce bias."
Great stuff!
Yes, real life is never as simple as our explanations: actual history
is far more complicated than the textbook presentations, the real
universe is a lot more complicated than our scientific theories, and
especially the way science is done in the real world has dimensions
not even hinted at in the stereotypical presentation of the scientific method.
But! -- I would not call the streamlined, simplified explanation of
the scientific method "phony". It's extremely simplified, but still
helpful to emphasize fundamental features involved in the scientific
enterprise. I routinely point out to my students that I personally
can't be involved (by lack of aptitude, experience, and/or interest)
in all aspects of the enterprise, but somewhere these factors are involved.
KC
Ken Caviness
Physics
Southern Adventist University
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "David Marx via Phys-l" <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Cc: "David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>
Subject: [Phys-L] electricity in the atmosphere
Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 2:51 PM
Thanks, John, for highlighting the NOVA episode, At the Edge of Space.
To me it is one of their best in showing how scientists actually do
science. None of this phony "scientific method" stuff. I have used
the full episode when I taught our lowest level general education
physics class. I have students watch it outside of class and write a
short analysis (not a summary) and answer a set of questions about it.
My daughter is taking an intro geology course and they require the
students to know the phony scientific method: hypothesis-theory-law.
I can't believe this stuff is still taught at the university level.
On Sat, February 10, 2018 9:35 am, John Denker via Phys-l wrote:
On 02/09/2018 06:47 PM, Derek McKenzie wrote:
I particularly appreciate the number estimates, as well as the idea
of modeling the phenomenon as a spherical capacitor.
For those who want to know more about the model.....
*) Magnificent reference:
"Electricity in the Atmosphere"
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
If you haven't recently read the Feynman lectures cover-to-cover, I
strongly recommend it.
*) Decent introduction at the qualitative level (no equations):
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/science/scienceintro.shtml
*) The books by Uman are useful but even the latest "revised"
edition is 50 years out of date. I haven't seen the 700-page tome by
Rakov and Uman but I gather it is more up-to-date.
*) Sprites in the upper atmosphere were predicted in 1921 by C.T.R.
Wilson but not observed until 1989, and are still a hot topic of
research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSCwiQWzMa0
Longer version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfryt3TILx0
That NOVA episode gives a realistic portrayal of scientists doing
their job. In particular, ask your students how they would feel if
they spent years putting together a team and building equipment, then
when the conditions are right staying up all night and spending an
additional
$100,000.00 to carry
out the mission, and coming back with ... nothing! If you don't know
what that feels like, you don't know what it's like to be a scientist.
Most remarkably, NOVA did not leave out the painful part of the
story.
A few nights later, good conditions come around again, so they carry
out the mission again, and come back with ... data. Gorgeous, highly
informative data.
Additional points to tell students:
-- Not all physics was done in the 1600s. There are still
interesting unanswered questions. -- Physics is mostly a team sport;
you don't have to be a lone genius like Galileo or Newton or Einstein
to make a contribution. -- A lot of it requires building fancy
instruments and exploiting modern technology. -- OTOH it usually
doesn't require CERN-sized teams or CERN-sized instruments.
Sometimes a Gulfstream-V full of fancy cameras will do nicely. --
There is joy at the end of the rainbow, but you have to tolerate a
lot of risk and pain before you get there. This requires strength of
character. Technical skill is not enough. -- It must be emphasized
that exploring blind alleys is part of the cost of obtaining
information. A mission that comes back with no data of the desired
kind is not a mistake and not a waste. Scientists take calculated
risks, carefully balancing risk versus reward. Don't take any more
risk than necessary, or any less.
https://www.av8n.com/physics/research-maze.htm
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l