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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of William Robertson
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 12:24 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not
You are as always free to define terms however you choose,
but please be aware that other may choose differently.
In particular, if you want to define some sort of _net weight_
or _effective weight_ and explain in a footnote that it includes
a buoyancy term (as Michael H. did), then I am 100% OK with
that. The rule here is simple: Say what you mean and mean
what you say.
If you are talking among physicists or physics educators, or
relatively advanced physics students, then I would agree with you.
Such an audience can understand an effective weight. But since this is
a physics education listserv, I would think we would want to use terms
that one would use in the average classroom. Even though we expect
people in this current discussion should be able to follow (with
careful explanation of the "new" definition) any non-standard
definition, I see the very real possibility of many taking something
explained here directly to the classroom. Coming up with one's own
definition of weight (operational or otherwise) cannot help but
confuse the average student. For the classroom, I believe one should
use the simple definitions provided in classic texts by classic
educators. And no, I'm not completely sure what a classic educator
is. ;o)
Bill
William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
On Nov 7, 2010, at 6:34 AM, John Denker wrote:
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l