You can see the sort of problem Alan describes on occasional episodes of Mythbusters on the Discovery channel, where they talk about myths in the movies. The most recent such that I saw was "Curving Bullet", based on a scene in the Angelina Jolie movie Wanted, in which swinging a gun is supposed to make the bullet move in a curve. Few people believe Newton on this point: "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion _in a right [straight] line_, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." Possibly because we have all seen curve balls thrown in baseball, bent (like Beckham) shots in soccer, English and spectacular massé shots in pool, hook balls in bowling, or even boomerangs returning to the thrower, all produced by friction with the air or a surface below.
Also, it is not enough to teach Galilean gravity simply as constant acceleration. We must demonstrate that constant downward acceleration combined with constant sideways motion produces a parabola _in the reference frame of every unaccelerated observer_. (Galilean Relativity) This is a deep point (deep in significance and in consequences, not hard to teach) about the nature of conic sections in math, and about the nature of physical law. As Alan points out in part below, we must teach gravity from the pre-scientific point of view up through Aristotle, then Galilean, Newtonian, and Einsteinian gravity, then the nature of exploration of possibilities in quantum gravity, string theory, and other Grand Unified Theories, and the even more inclusive proposed Theories of Everything. (The E8 TOE is particularly beautiful, but that isn't enough to make it true.) At the same time, we have to teach children how to understand the ontology and epistemology of physics. Newton's Absolute Space, later the Luminiferous Ether, was an understandable but serious error in both, for which there was no evidence. The only justification that Newton could have given was, "I can't imagine anything else." This is known as the Argument from Ignorance, which has produced many spectacularly bad results in science and philosophy. Which leads us to logic, including mathematical logic, and logical fallacies, and from there to law and politics, and so on. It also leads us to the ethics of science. I define ethics as the consideration of what we should do even if we don't want to. In physics, that includes considering all possible objections to the theory you are trying to prove, and not "making hypotheses". Those last are Newton's own words. He failed his own test on this point. However, none of this is what schools are _for_, in what is laughably called mainstream thinking. Schools, since the invention of the Prussian Welfare State, are little factories for little minds so that they know enough to do their assigned tasks, and nothing more that would let them interfere with their rulers. Except for children of the elite, who attend quite different schools intended to teach them to rule, to conquer, and to pillage, and to regard the rest of mankind as industrial tools and cannon fodder. This was invented for purposes of nations, and has been transformed for purposes of corporate management. "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Alan Kay<[email protected]> wrote: > This doesn't teach physics ... it is aimed mostly at providing typical > problems with some diagnostic aids and hints to (theoretically) help > students learn how to apply what they are supposed to have learned by other > means to physics problems. > > (However, it is difficult to find any physics text for high school or > college that actually teaches physics and physical thinking. Even lab > courses usually use the lab to verify the "truths of physics" (there are > actually no such things) rather than to try to get evidence for formulating > and guiding the creation of theories which can lead to further experiments.) > > As an example, the lab for gravity is used to verify the Galilean formulas > (which postulate constant acceleration). This is because with simple tools > in air it is difficult to measure accurately enough to get data which more > closely resembles what is going on. (Dropping a heavy object 14-16 feet in a > vacuum measured very very carefully will reveal a difference of about 1 part > in a million between constant acceleration and inverse square acceleration, > and it takes incredible tools to show that inverse square acceleration is > not the whole story either.) It is much easier to demonstrate inverse square acceleration using a pendulum. > The sad results according to those who have studied this in colleges for > more than 30 years (for example Physicist Lillian McDermott) is that 70% of > all students (including science majors) fail to understand even Galilean > gravity, and a much higher percentage don't understand that Galilean gravity > is an approximate theory, that Newton's theory is a much better but > approximate theory, that Einstein's General Theory is a much better theory > but also approximate). There are many reasons for all this, which can be > gisted as (a) "the epistemology of science" is not at all what most people > suppose, and it is rather distant from the normal ways our minds are set up > to work, and (b) that most "educational" processes most places in the world > including the US are still teaching "knowledge as religion to be believed > in", which *is* what our minds are set up for, and this is how things have > been since the Pleistocene. This is one of several reasons why Creationists are able to argue, at least among themselves, that Darwinism is just a competing religion. > Best wishes, > > Alan > > ________________________________ > From: Greg Smith <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 8:53:02 AM > Subject: [IAEP] Comments on David Kokorowski, David Pritchard and > "Mastering" Educational SW > > Hi All, > > Does anyone have experience or comments on the educational work of David > Pritchard and David Korokowski, MIT Physicists? > > They created the Mastering Physics (and other subjects) software: > http://www.masteringphysics.com/site/index.html > > Its commercial SW focused on College level learning and its uses what they > call a "Socratic" method of learning (possibly related to sophistry). See > some of their papers here: > http://www.masteringphysics.com/site/results/index.html > > I'm interested in feedback for my own edification but thought it might also > generate some discussion on the best educational tools for Sugar/XO. > > Thanks, > > Greg Smith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. http://earthtreasury.org/worknet (Edward Mokurai Cherlin) _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
