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: [Phys-l] nature of science




Some experiments can be simple and have surprising results. We got one out
of a book and it was spectacular. We grew 8 plants identically, but with
one difference. 6 of them had batteries attached to them. Every day for
about 1/2 hour we attached batteries for half an hour. 2 the wires did not
make a complete circuit. 2 had positive connected near the top of the stem
and negative at the bottom, while the last 2 had the other polarity. One
polarity definitely stunted the growth of the plants. Why??? We couldn't
find out anything definite, nor could the science teacher. I think the
hypothesis was that the batteries would change the growth. As I recall a
silly product test won top prize. The science teacher thought it was very
good, but the judges did not.

Of course my daughter's careful observation of the motion and phases of the
moon was a nonstarter. She did figure out with some prompting which way the
moon went around the earth. It was real science, but again some simplistic
project won.

When I was in HS the science fair I attended did not require the rigid
incorrect scientific method presentation. We did well by just showing off
the rockets we designed and flew, complete with an electronic ignition
system I designed from a train transformer and a single strand of iron wire
from multistrand picture wire.

When did silly experiments start trumping good design and theory?

Incidentally a number of journal articles especially in JRST do follow the
hypothesis...conclusion format. One wonders how often the hypothesis was
fabricated after the experiment.

Then if you think that swabbing was difficult, I knew someone who took a
course on evaluation of individuals. He has one assignment to pass the
course. He had to administer a full Wechsler IQ test to one willing
individual, and of course score it. Do you know how difficult it is to get
someone willingly take a full muti-hour IQ test? Some science fairs do not
allow human or animal subjects!!!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


I vote for RC's initial statement, i.e. a law is a functional statement,
e.g. square law capacitor, his example [F = GmM/r^2], Hooke, etc. And
a theory is an explanation. [This is bare bones.]


I was a judge yesterday and, as youall can imagine, it was unpleasant in
the respect JC discusses. I suppose it's butting our heads, but I
suggest one way to produce some movement would be to influence the
creation of two, inter alia, other classes. Exploration and Techniques
/ Apparatus. One contestant (middle school) wondered what happens if we
vary the cooling time of glazes in addition to the obvious max.
temperature. He used multiple samples, glazes, and three cooling
regimes. This guy's was down graded, because he didn't have a hypot.
Another (HS) built a Marx generator to "drive" an X-ray tube. He
installed it and the X-ray tube in a ss pressurized tube, and used an
XR-7 screen / film cassette for the detector. His presentation was
very complete including the evolution (development) of the generator
both w/ keynote and a journal. No hypot. or experiments. He did state
he built it for future fast photography. He won't go to Sacramento.

BTW, I read somewhere [pop. science or a text] science is what
scientists do. Which reminds me of a friend's [successful artist,
former gallery owner and Prof.] all inclusive definition of art. Any
object that the person says is art.

bc, would've been happier in SF marching.

p.s. I was taught Hooke's law as w/in the elastic regime .... Which is,
of course, circular.
p.p.s One of the better ones swabbed 87 classmates and grew it in S.
aureus resistant strain specific agar. She made clear the sample was
small (1% of our pop. has that resistant strain.), and did a Chi square
test w/ the one + result. She was surprised at how resistant her
fellows were to getting swabbed, and admitted she'd initially
mispronounced Chi.


My question is: Is there any reason why we call one "law" and the other
"theory" or is it simply because we can't use the same word for both?
If the latter, could we just as well be referring to the inverse square
relationship as the "Theory of Gravitation" if we hadn't already
settled
on arbitrarily calling it the "Law of Gravitation" (or visa-versa)?

P.S. I think the original request may have come out of the common
impression that laws are theories that have been proven to be true. Is
there general agreement that this is *not* the case?

____________________________________________________
Robert Cohen, Chair, Department of Physics


Since Robert asked, I will offer my response - the idea of Laws
in science is reactionary - in that it conveys the idea that there
are some scientific statements one can make that are cast in stone,
rather than uttered as provisional.

The idea of "Laws" goes together with the picture of scientists
who seek "Truth" - another unhappy construction.