Dear Leigh + spectators to this interesting duel:
Don't take it so seriously! Even if I would insist, nobody will
ever believe that your physics classes are a pantomime! But it is
my method that whenever I want to analyze a complicated problem, I
try to apply it to some extreme conditions, where the result may be
something ridiculous - you then see the problem clearer, and by the
way you enjoy a little of humor (example: I heard that somewhere in
Brazil they had a city rule that in order to be allowed at some
places, you had to have a tie on; therefore some poor people weared
a tie but no shirt).
I actually think that our discussion is reasonable and interesting.
It refers to the "interface" between the imprecise "every day" language
and the more precise language we wish to use in physics. I myself use,
of course, the everyday language when I write these comments, by I am
careful in my use of words: I never said that you should DEFINE
entropy as a measure of disorder, simply because I don't know what
disorde really are supposed to mean. In the usual language, I had
some idea what you may mean within a specific context of disorder:
disorderly conduct on the street, disorder in traffic, disorder of
the papers on my desk etc. But disorder in a gas? Disorder in a deck
of cards? Take the three letters a,b,c. You can "order" them in
3!=6 different ways. In which way are they "disordered? You see,
the same is true for a deck of 52 cards, you can order them in 52!
different ways, hence they are never "disordered".
My conclusion: whenever you switch from the imprecise everyday
language to a more precise meaning of the terms, you have to do a lot
of explanations, particularly to students, who simply not only do
not know the more precise meaning of the terms, but have even some
difficulty grasping the difference between the use of the term in
the usual language and in the context of physics.
Best regards Emilio