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]

[Phys-l] the twistorical approach



One sometimes hears "the historical approach" suggested as a way to
motivate and to organize an intro-level physics course. It just cracks
me up.

In my experience, the folks who make that claim can do so with a straight
face only because they are so ignorant of the real history that they don't
realize how badly they are twisting the facts.

An intro-level physics class should keep things simple and straight-
forward. Real history is neither simple nor straightforward. In intro
classes we should use the best available evidence, which is rarely the
same as the most ancient evidence.

As for the rest of us -- those who do not pretend to invoke history --
I see no reason why we should be required to know much about history.
I certaintly don't know much about it.

Evidently a lot of other people don't know much about it, either. During
the last week (and on earlier occasions) quite a number of people have
argued that F "causes" ma, and until now nobody has commented on how that
idea collides against the history of physics.

You don't need to know much to see how badly twisted the "history" is in
typical physics texts.

If you want to study the history of science, that's commendable, but bear
in mind that it is an advanced, complicated, and difficult topic ... not
to be confused with intro physics.