Re: does gravity exist?

On Jul 16, 5:59 pm, Himself <hims...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:38:04 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Jul 16, 5:12 pm, Himself <hims...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:54:29 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 16, 4:23 pm, Himself <hims...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:14:04 -0700, Himself <hims...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:04:01 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:44 pm, Himself <hims...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 16, 12:55 pm, Himself <hims...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:50:42 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 10:13 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 15, 1:14 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 14, 7:32 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We don't really need force as such in classical mechanics either.
One can deal instead with the potential energy and its shape.
Yeah, I know that you can make such an argument---been a while though.
Could you tell me what it is that keeps the apple in the tree again?
I believe that the Greeks claimed that everything had a natural
place and, if given the chance, would seek it.
The natural place for apples was on the ground. That's why it needs
a stem to hold it
Yes exactly. Tricksy math only takes you so far in explaining things
to people. Since our models are only there to help us think about
these things, and one is no more or less 'real' than another, my
inclination is to use the most accessible conceptualization to begin
with.

I'm really not trying to be difficult. I've spent a lifetime
thinking about these things and haven't really solved them.
The problem with the "most accessible conceptualization" is
that such a thing varies with culture and education.

No universal there.

I think that one of the aims of basic physics is to describe
all phenomena with as few arbitrary constants and rules as
possible.

One is stuck with mathematical constants, they flow naturally
out of our construction of numbers. But can't we figure out
why the proton has the mass that it does? Or why the magnitude
of the electronic charge is what it is? Or whatever.

That could be one of our goals. Another is to reach out to find
new phenomena and to try to mesh that new stuff into the old
stuff.

Math is crucial here. In a conservative system I can talk
about potential energies or I can talk about forces. The
two are directly related. The choice of which one is basic
is somewhat arbitrary.

But this is also an example of where your paradigm works well.
We've pretty much abandoned Newton's formulation for a simpler
one that deals with kinetic and potential energies and the notion
that the time evolution of a system minimizes (or maximizes)
the "action".

The neat thing there is that the same approach works in
quantum mechanics and in relativity. That's neat. Newton
can't do that.

Of course these rules contain Newton's laws. They'd have to.

No real disagreement---I don't want to nitpick. But my concern is how
things are accessible to people who aren't working at that level---
which if not universal is majority. How many people read that article
and had the kind of discussion going on here over their water
coolers?

That's EXACTLY the problem. Most every member of congress, their
staffs, the White House, etc., had a science course or two in
their lives. I've taught some of them.

They are generally useless.

You can't teach brain surgery in 10 lectures.

I think that what we need is, in part, to teach that we can
give enough of an explanation of a phenomenon so that one can
understand what is going on. We *can't* explain it in detail.

Many folks will keep asking why. More will be unhappy because
they think that *we* think they are fools and won't understand.

It is tough. Really tough, because specialization is much out
of favor nowadays and folks will no longer defer to folks with
experience. AGW is but one example. Evolution is another.

I would like people to be comfortable with the process of science, and
with mathematical and quantitative relationships----even if they think
in terms of 'force' because that connects with their kinesthetic
perception when they hold an apple in the palm of their hand. So we
are talking about different utilities.

I would like that too.

I don't know how to do it in general.

You need specialists. The problem is, most of the people who can teach
those specialists are already specialists in something else, and tend
to be a bit parochial.

If the subject you want people to learn is "how science works" and
"quantitative reasoning", then that's what you have to teach them. If
you want them to respect specialists, you have to let them experience
what the specialists do, without the specialty.

Can an average person, who may not have all that much respect for
science or experts, be taught to think like a scientist?

I don't think I can do it with the average 50 year old Creationist.
But I'm talking about education, so we would hopefully get them at a
younger age.

It might be doable, but it would require considerable changes in the
educational system and in the way educators think.

Thanks for sharing that.
Of course it's obvious that changes in systems and attitudes need to
be modified. You see the need, but I was inviting you to suggest ideas
as to how the problem might be solved.

Sorry about the typo.

Do you have any ideas as to how an educational system would work that
produced students with analytical skills applicable to any of a wide
range of problems?

I thought I already provided that: Make "analytical skills applicable
to any of a wide range of problems" a subject. I suggest starting to
teach it at a relatively early age.

This is a societal as well as an educational problem. How would you
influence teachers' existing attitude that they have a standard set of
facts to be stuffed into students' memory? Are you thinking of a
single course in problem solving or scientific thinking?

Which part of "make it a subject and start teaching it early on" is
unclear? How is that a single course?

OK; you want either to teach multiple courses in this subject.



It won't be
very effective in my opinion.

The problem is immediate and pressing. How would you integrate this
teaching into the existing educational system?

I hear Prof. Wilkins is working on it. He wrote a paper, and perhaps
once it is published, people will stop teaching factoids and monkey-
math and concentrate on sharing the joys of heuristics with their
students.

Would you attempt to
teach primary grade students Newtonian mechanics, or would you start
with various problem solving games, perhaps with online audio-visual
presentations and interactive games? How would you deal with the fact
that most teachers at this level will need remedial education and will
also need to adjust to a different way of teaching?

Seriously, I have no clue. In my experience there is enormous
resistance at all levels, and it is at the higher levels that change
must begin. Why don't *you* think up some approaches that won't make
people mad, including people in this group?

I didn't intend to make you mad, but you took the invitation to offer
suggestions as a challange. It was a challange of sorts, but isn't
this the very essence of analytical thinking? Interesting and
important problems are identified. Attempts to solve them will involve
various sorts of challanges. Skills are needed to meet these
challenges. These skills are both technical and attitudinal. These
skills and attitudes need to be acquired by both teachers and
students. Interesting challenge, don't you think?

I get the feeling that you don't read very carefully---that's the only
thing I might find annoying personally. Did you miss the part where I
asked you to make some suggestions about how to achieve the changes?
Put down the coffee or the energy drink for a few minutes and see what
you can come up with.

-tg




-tg

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: does gravity exist?
    ... that such a thing varies with culture and education. ... those specialists are already specialists in something else, ... produced students with analytical skills applicable to any of a wide ... that most teachers at this level will need remedial education and will ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: does gravity exist?
    ... Could you tell me what it is that keeps the apple in the tree again? ... that such a thing varies with culture and education. ... those specialists are already specialists in something else, ... educational system and in the way educators think. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: does gravity exist?
    ... Could you tell me what it is that keeps the apple in the tree again? ... that such a thing varies with culture and education. ... those specialists are already specialists in something else, ... educational system and in the way educators think. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: does gravity exist?
    ... Could you tell me what it is that keeps the apple in the tree again? ... that such a thing varies with culture and education. ... new phenomena and to try to mesh that new stuff into the old ... those specialists are already specialists in something else, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: does gravity exist?
    ... Could you tell me what it is that keeps the apple in the tree again? ... that such a thing varies with culture and education. ... new phenomena and to try to mesh that new stuff into the old ... those specialists are already specialists in something else, ...
    (talk.origins)