| 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] |
I agree with Leigh and Hugh. I even tell my students that physics is*******************************************************
a
series of LIES. The question then becomes one of deciding how much of
a
lie we are willing to accept. To clarify, the most accurate
description of
nature is nature itself. I point out that in this one extreme of
accuracately identifying physics you can just "look" at the phenomena
and
marvel--kind of an "Oh, Wow!"
When you start "taking it apart", you begin to see different aspects
very
accurately, but have to tell yourself "lies" in order to understand
each
single aspect.
What I recall from freshman physics was being *told* to neglect
friction in
a certain problem. At the same time, I was learning that to accept a
false
premise would lead you to a false conclusion. So, neglecting friction
was
a LIE, and I fought that instructor like a kid learning to swim fights
water. Eventually I came to understand that you have to accept the
"lies"
in order to get some deeper understanding of the "parts". You can
then
correct the "lies" (often exchanging them for other ones) as you gain
comprehension.
My most rewarding confirmation of this came when my step-father loaned
me a
1800's encyclopedia that his parents had passed to him. In it I read
about
the luminiferous either. It was not presented as a theory. These
"scientist" were dead serious, and their (now rediculous) description
taught me that a little humility in what we call "the truth"
("understanding") might serve us more kindly in *our* old age, when
others
read our descriptions of nature, and want to laugh their heads off at
our
stupidity. Karl
ofI think understanding of physics is never attained. One can always
see deeper into a subject even after one feels one understands it
satisfactorily. Understanding admits of various degrees. Even the
simplest of concepts can be deeper than an expert on the concept
realizes. I have seen the understanding of the entire physics
community deepen beyond the previous understanding of even the
acknowledged world expert too many times to accept the
pronouncements of authority as final.
Leigh
It seems to me that Leigh has put his finger on an important aspect
understanding that has not come up in this thread (at least I haven'tquantity-either
noticed it). We keep thinking of understanding as a binary
you have it or you don't. This is clearly not true. Understanding isa
continuum ranging from little or none to truly profound. Most physicsaddress is
teachers are somewhere in the middle and the question we need to
what level of understanding is appropriate for students at variouslevels,
and should it be evenly spread across the spectrum of topics we dealwith
or is is acceptable if the depth varies from topic to topic, and ifso,
which topics are the most important to put our effort into to makesure
that the understanding has passed beyond the little or none stage?thread,
I've seen a dozen different definitions of understanding in this
some better than others, but none that satisfy me. Unfortunately, Ihaven't
got any improvements to offer. It begins to seem to me thatunderstanding
may be one of those words like art-we may not be able to define itbut we
usually know it when we see it.Macintosh.
***************************************************************************
*****
Hugh Haskell
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>
The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better." So I bought a
***************************************************************************
*****
Dr. Karl I. Trappe Desk Phone: (512)
471-4152
Physics Dept, Mail Stop C-1600 Demo Office: (512)
471-5411
The University of Texas at Austin Home Phone: (512)
264-1616
Austin, Texas 78712-1081