Re: Conventions (was Definition of Capacitance)

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

Quoting "Folkerts, Timothy" <FolkertsT@BARTONCCC.EDU>:

> We need to recognize and take some
> responsibility for the fact that the conventions we perpetuate are often
> inconvenient, inconsistent, or just plain incorrect, and that this often
> makes the process of gaining underatnading more difficult than it should be.

Right.

> instructors use names as if it was obvious that
> these are the right ideas to use.

Well, we agree that they *shouldn't* take such things as
obvious.  (Some instructors make this mistake;  some don't.)

For starters, we should keep firmly in mind that physics is
not an exact science.  It is a *natural* science.  Many of
the best-loved laws (e.g. F=ma) are only approximations.  This
comes as a real shock to many students, who come in with very
unsophisticated notions of "right" versus "wrong" (e.g. if it's
not 100% right it must be 100% wrong).

But when it comes to terminology and other _conventions_, we have
problems in every sphere of life, including science, even the
so-called exact part of science.  In mathematics there are
alarmingly many instances of inconsistent definitions.  (If
we could get rid of the out-and-out conflicts so that only
mere inconveniences remained, I would consider it paradise.)
 -- at least two different math definitions of "field"
 -- at least two different math definitions of "irreducible"
 -- at least two technical interpretations of "conservation of energy"
 -- not to mention "h&@t"
 -- not to mention all the cases where there is a technical
    definition that conflicts with the vernacular definition
    (e.g. "elastic" ....)

All in all, it's such a mess that it's a miracle that anybody
can communicate with anybody else.