Re: Smiley Faces!

["Rick Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

But isn't this exactly the problem?  Human languages, especially ones as
fluid and ever changing as English, provide very little precision in
everyday usage, yet 'science' (and other technical and formal fields)
require extreme precision in language.  One way out of the trap is to
develop a very specific and very technical vocabulary that is so separate
from everyday usage that little or no contamination is possible.  However,
such vocabularies then have the function of isolating the 'common-person'
from most knowledge and almost all discussion of these technical areas.  Do
we really want such for physics?  It has certainly happened in the more
advanced and esoteric areas, but do we want this for the kind of physics
taught in High School and Introductory College courses?  If not, then we
_must_ deal with the differences between everyday usage and _physics_ usage,
and must then deal with the terms 'work', 'force', 'weight', etc. from BOTH
perspectives--the meanings the students bring with them, and the correct
usage in physics.  I'm sure we've all dealt with people (usually students)
who have a full 'physics vocabulary' but can't use the words correctly in a
scientific context.  ;-)

Rick

From: Dewey Dykstra, Jr. <dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu>


> David Dockstader says:
>
> > I think Doug has a good analogy with wt given in kg.  If enough people use
> > terminology loosly, it becomes part of the language and all precision in
> > language is lost.
>
> Logically a sad state of affairs, but the logic depends on the assumptions.
> Is it the case that such "precision in language" actually exists in human
> culture and does it really make sense that it could?
>
> Dewey