Re: [Phys-l] analogies

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

Comments below.

Bill




On Nov 26, 2010, at 9:06 PM, John Denker wrote:

> Sometimes I can't tell where sarcasm ends and plain old nonsense
> begins.

Sarcasm doesn't work if it isn't rooted in the truth. I fail to see  
the direct line between sarcasm and nonsense.
> =====
>
> It would be the height of folly to uncritically reject all
> analogies ... or to uncritically accept all analogies.

Absolutely.
> The point is that some analogies are very much better than
> others.  Some analogies are very useful for some purposes ...
> while other analogies are worse than useless.  Ascertaining
> which is which requires judgment and skill.

Absolutely.
> Yes, all analogies are imperfect.  The point is, we should
> neither over-react nor under-react to the imperfections.

Yes. We should not over-react, such as rejecting a simulation because  
people are moving with their feet and thinking they cannot separate  
this from the lesson involved in the analogy.

> If we accept one analogy (despite its imperfections) that
> does not oblige us to accept every other analogy that comes
> along.  Conversely, if we reject one analogy (because of its
> imperfections) that does not oblige us to reject every other
> analogy that comes along.

Absolutely.
> Finding analogies is easy.  Finding analogies that are actually
> helpful is much harder.

My main point. Because the search for helpful analogies is difficult  
does not mean the search is useless.
> =====
>
> I know all this sounds obvious.  I take some comfort in the
> maxim that having a keen grasp of the obvious is better than
> fumbling the obvious.

Assuming that others are fumbling the obvious, simply because they are  
searching for an analogy or simulation, would be a mistake.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l