Re: simulation +- hands-on experiments

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 08:37 AM 7/9/00 -0400, John Gastineau wrote:

> I know of students who seem to be able to get their minds around
> the concepts of a simulation very rapidly. They find simulations quite
> illuminating.

OK.

> Then there are students who are left cold by staring at a computer screen,
> especially if the only output is in the form of numbers and graphs.

OK.

I'd go even farther and say that simulations are risky because you can
simulate bogus physics just as easily as real physics.  It takes special
effort to establish the credibility of the simulation.

> Listening to a Geiger counter and taking data to illustrate the
> statistical point may reach those students much more quickly and effectively
> than using Excel.

But that's not the setup that was described.  The Geiger counter was
connected to ........ a computer!  In such a setup, the Geiger counter is
just an expensive substitute for the rand() function.

The questions that were being asked (arrival times and various cumulative
and marginal distributions) are purely mathematical questions.  They
contain no physics whatsoever, and there's no point in pretending otherwise.

For the stated purposes one is no worse off, indeed better off, using excel
rather than the Geiger counter.

But I completely agree that a different experiment -- a real hands-on
experiment -- would have value.  That's why I suggested using dice.


> Finally, as instructors we need to note that students take on our own biases
> very quickly. If we (or a prior instructor) talk up experiment as the
> ultimate authority, then students will find experiments striking. If instead
> we talk up the mathematics, then elegant presentations may have great
> impact.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation.

There are some mathematical questions that require mathematical answers.
There are some experimental questions that require experimental answers.
There are some questions that can be attacked either way.