Re: [Phys-l] What comes first, the equation or the explanation?

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

On 12/21/2011 4:05 PM, Peter Schoch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am very fortunate to have inquisitive and gifted students in Physics this year that are asking LOTS of questions.  As we get ready for finals, the questions are getting more frequent and more detailed, but the one I got yesterday was a "stumper" that some of you might appreciate!  At the end of asking his physics questions the student turned to me and asked one more:  "Professor, when we ask you a question, do you see the formulas first and then create the explanation or get the explanation first and then see the related formulas?"
>
> I stopped.  I was befuddled, as I had never really thought of it before now.  I thought my way through it to a vague answer (in my mind) that seemed to satisfy the student, but it has been running around in my head ever since.  Now as I answer questions, I find myself also trying to pay attention to see 'what comes first, the equation or the explanation'.  Of course the physicist in me also notes that because I am aware of it, I may be skewing my perceptions of which I do.  Nevertheless, it is a fascinating idea...
>
> Happy Holidays,
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
There is something that I find difficult to identify, which seems 
ill-posed about a question in this form.   I have it that natural 
philosophy, and science in general is about observing some behavior 
evinced by a natural entity rather than a man-made object. Putting 
numbers to it - making a model of the behavior for its explanatory and 
predictive value - formerly in  geometric form, often now in algebraic 
form. I would expect such models to be capable of description in plain 
language, though it might be a protracted effort.
If a student asks a question about "physics' , she would be asking about 
some observable facet of  that physical entity; or if not, she would be 
expressing some question about the model in use to describe that 
entity.      In this latter case, the question concerns which model is 
appropriate to the observations, or some feature of the model of  
interest: but perhaps instead  the nuts and bolts of it: the calculus, 
the specialized functions in use to describe it. It seems to me that if 
conceptually, the question could be answered by entering it in a 
calculator, or presenting it to a math package, then it is not about 
physics at all; but about manipulating  or solving equations or some such.

Brian W