Re: Empiry

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

John Gastineau says:

> Students know that the underlying rules of the simulation are the very
> rules that they are expected to learn in their physics course. As a
> result they have _considerable_ respect for the simulation--it allows
> them a tool to explore those rules in a way that complements physical
> experiments particularly well. It might help their grades, after all. (!)

I find that simulations help me. I believe in the underlying physics,
however. My concern is that students do not believe in the validity
of physics in the real world. Their upbringing is such that they are
unfamiliar with the physical world (or at least much less familiar
than I was at the same age) and they are more inclined to believe in
nonsense, and even to distrust science. The famous book "Limits to
Growth" was largely believed because it displayed computer output and
encoursged people to accept that as gospel. Of course the book was
rubbish based upon rubbish. We know that now, but you would be
surprised to find how many people don't know it.  Even if one
succeeds in telling them this they will then, at best, distrust
computers rather than the frauds perpetrated using them.

Ever since I discovered that my classical mechanics students *knew*
that F=ma, but that when confronted with a real world example they
did not *believe* F=ma, I have been worried. Computer simulations
without a lot of real world experience do little good. Besides, how
does the student know that a computer simulation is giving him the
straight scoop unless he has written the simulation himself? Using
"Interactive Physics", as good as it is at simulating mechanical
problems, will teach the unsophisticated student far less than his
more sophisticated teacher, who sees lots more in the simulations,
thinks.

Leigh