| 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] |
Perhaps, Fernanda, it is better to say,enough...
"Thank goodness that Thomas Edison had the perspicacity to subscribe
to Scientific American, so that when his research staff read the
experimental finding of Swann's, (who used a carbon filament to make
a short-lived incandescent lamp), they were able to cease their
mindless testing of plausible materials in favor of a published
improvement?"
Brian Whatcott
At 10:08 PM 5/8/2004, Fernanda Foertter [Advanced Physics Forums] wrote:
so you'll continue doing it your way until something is published?
thank goodness Thomas Edison didn't think that his candles we're
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)
Thank Goodness for John Clements, who reminds us time and again,
that no matter how plausible & attractive the teaching initiatives -
(e.g. to demonstrate problem solving cold - complete with warts) -
if there is no experimental improvement shown, then there is no
scientific basis for a method.
Brian Whatcott
At 05:08 PM 5/8/2004, John Clements, you wrote:
In all of this discussion there has been no firm evidence presented
that any of these methods actually improve problem solving.
In the case of Feynman I think we should remember that he said
that his lectures were a failure in
that they did not improve student understanding of physics.
/snip/
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!