Re: [Phys-l] operational definitions (was calibration )

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Michael Edmiston wrote:
> > I don't have a strong attachment to any of the names I have heard and
> > used.
>
> Me too. I wrote that there is "no harm" in using the two terms but John
> D. disagreed. Then the thread drifted to a different issue -- are the
> two terms well known or not. That led to need for an operational
> definition. How else can such controversies be resolved?

Agreeing on the operational definition of "widely used" is likely to be 
much easier than agreeing on the operational definition of  "harmful to 
students."
_______________________________________________________
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physicist
5 Horizon Road, apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist at http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/