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]

Re: A Parents' Day gem




I think this is the strongest argument I've seen for getting rid of the
misnamed courses in "conceptual physics". One must question their value
to the student and to the society. Originally I believe these courses
were promoted on the premise that they would produce "scientific
literacy" in a population otherwise deprived of that blessing. Here we
have a conceptual physics course with a menu of *important* concepts
which are intentionally left out. Not only are these topics not treated
mathematically, they are not mentioned at a natural juncture in the
course dealing with projectile motion.

Nick's omission here is not a unique error. It is entirely representative
of the point of view taken by proponents of such courses. I can talk about
*all* of the topics in the list on a level appropriate to a mathematically
unsophisticated student. Why is it inappropriate to talk about them when
they naturally come up?

Leigh

Leigh, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As you point out, there
is no reason to omit these topics from a "conceptual" course, if only to
point out that the model constructed in a first course needs to be modified
later on in order to take into account those aspects of the real world that
were initialy omitted because they are "too hard." It is not unreasonable
to point out to students and even do a few qualitative demos of the effect
of rotation on trajectories, or to discuss the curvature of the earth. In
fact Paul Hewitt has a really nice discussion on one of his videos of how
the curvature of the earth plays in explaining how objects orbit the earth.
In the process he shows one way of finding the speed of objects in low
earth orbit. Not bad for a "non-mathematical" presentation.

I think you are continuing to confuse "physics for poets" with "conceptual
physics." They really are different animals. I am implacably opposed to the
former, but feel there is a place for the latter. Properly done, CP in not
"dumped down physics" but physics presented in the context of the
mathematical sophistication of the audience, which usually means simple
relationships, ratios, and not much emphasis on formulary. It doesn't mean
that important topics like air resistance, coriolis forces, etc., are not
discussed.

On the other hand the category of courses that have dome to be known as
"[physics for poets" or other euphamisms are for the most part "dumped down
physics" that usually involve a simplistic but encyclopedic collection of
"fizzicks phacts" with little or no development of why they are true (of
course, all too often they are not true). I keep geting the impression that
this is the class of course you talk about with the label of CP. If so, I
think you have mistaken the hounds for the fox (or any other silly metaphor
that indicates you have confused CP with PfP).

Hugh

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better." So I bought a Macintosh.
************************************************************