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: reifying energy




1) Energy is a thing, according to the usual definitions of
"energy" and "thing". To say otherwise is not only bad
pedagogy, it's flat-out wrong. For details see
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/reality-reductionism.htm

Of _course_ according to common usage the concept of "energy" is reified.
That doesn't mean that the common user is correct or even using
the word in a useful way. It surely doesn't mean that Bill Nye the
Science Guy is the font of physics wisdom. As physics teachers we should
feel obligated to teach correct physics. I hear here that for an intro
class the simplest thing would be to teach gross approximations and
send them on their way and leave it up to the next teacher to straighten
things out. Good pedagogy requires that we say it correctly -- or at
least warn the students that the teaching is almost correct but that there
will be some adjustment to the teachings when the students learn a bit
more and are prepared for the next steps.

But in the meantime don't lay the groundwork for greater confusion later
with blatantly incorrect teachings just because it is easy to do
so. Their grammar school teachers have already done enough of that.

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen