Re: science&publicity

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

One obvious solution would be that science really ought to talk
gobbley-gook--unique words for all important concepts and quantities.  In
fact, it largely does so--as does medicine, computer science, and other
highly technical areas.  HOWEVER, this then makes a subject even more
mysterious, more remote, more 'impossible' to the average student.

So, the problems as outlined remain--we really need to keep some (if not
most) of the common terms (work, energy, heat, conservation, etc.) yet be
able to have students distinguish between the common usage and the technical
usage of such words.  Since we know this is a problem in our classes, it is
not at all surprising it should be a problem in the general society.

Rick

*********************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
********************************************************
Free Physics Educational Software (Win & Mac)
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Energy 2100--class project
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ENERGY_PROJECT/ENERGY2100.htm
********************************************************



----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Haskell" <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: science&publicity


> At 21:25 +0200 5/1/03, Ramon Sala wrote:
> > I'm a physics teacher and actually I'm preparing a TV report on the
> > abuse of the scientific terms in publicity, how this kind of stuff tell
> > us something about the scientific cultural level of society and how to
> > deal with it in the educational programs.
> Sounds like an interesting project. Unfortunately, I cannot direct
> you to any studies on the subject you ask about, but I would like to
> nudge your attention over to the converse problem, which, from an
> educational point of view is at least as important as the question
> you have raised, if not more important. What I refer to is the habit
> of scientists to take over everyday words, and give them new meanings
> which may or may not have any relation to the everyday usage. I think
> this would be a very worthwhile follow-on to your first question.