Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back.

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/06/2008 05:24 PM, Paul Lulai wrote:
> I'm curious what the list thinks.  I'll take any comments as
> constructive criticism.
>
> My h.s. students will do modeling-type labs.  For example, plot
> *Fnet* vs. *a* for a constant mass system.  They determine meanings
> of y-intercept, slope.  Then they relate the y=mx+b eqn to variables
> with which we've become familiar.  What can we do to change y-int?
> What can we do to change slope?  What can we do to change eqn from
> linear to quadratic? The y-int, slope questions are pretty tough for
> high schoolers. 

Those are scientific questions.

> When we get to changing eqn, we eventually get to an
> answer that we can't.  Why? 

This cuts to the core of what physics is.  The role of
physics is to say what happens.  Physics may or may not
say how it happens, and rarely if ever says why it happens.
This is what sets physics apart from metaphysics and
philosophy.  Galileo made this point in 1638, and this
is considered the epoch, i.e. Day One of modern science.

Getting this point across is tricky.

Eventually it comes down to a value proposition:  A question
about "what happens" that can be answered reliably is more 
interesting and more valuable than a question about "why" 
that cannot be answered.

Of course there is an endless supply of charlatans who claim
to explain "why", but their answers are not reliable.