The "social construction of reality" or perhaps the "social description
of reality" is an important concept.

Different societies describe reality in different ways, which is why
there is seldom an exact one to one correspondence between words in
different languages.

There is a world society of physicists whose way of describing reality
is special in two ways.

Firstly it involves the invention of a very precise language. When
expressed in symbols, the language is the same world wide. Local groups
of physicist give many of the concepts and quantities of physics names
which are taken from words with similar meanings in the local common
language. However when used in Physics, these word are identical in
meaning to the corresponding word in other local languages.

Secondly the description has a large quantitative element employing
measures whose definition is designed for ease of description and the
formation of (explainable) relationships between measures. [For example
our measure of current makes the sum of currents into a junction equal
to the sum of the currents out. Had current have been defined as
proportional to the heating effect, we would have to use the sums of the
square roots of the current in that law of Kirchhoff.]

GCSE and GCE Physics are to a considerable extent entry and intermediate
level entry certificates to this language. What is important is that
examiners stick to the standard English version of the language of
physics and do not expect candidates to learn a special dialect for the
examination, even where the established English Physics language falls
short of the usual precision [for example in the use of the word
"heat"].


Steve Bolter 01 787 - 461 604
Wickham House
Gestingthorpe
CO9 3BH


-----Original Message-----
From: learning-science-concepts@...
[mailto:learning-science-concepts@...] On Behalf Of Dr.
Keith S. Taber
Sent: Thursday 31 August 2006 10:29
To: learning-science-concepts
Cc: kst24@...
Subject: LSC: Pluto, astronomy and science

Apologies for the frivolity, but the following
satire on the debate about downgrading Pluto's
status as a planet amused me.

What hope for science education?

Of course, there is a serious morale in here
about the social construction of reality, but
that may just be an excuse for passing this on.

Best wishes

Keith


>Sender: Physics Teaching News and Comments
<PTNC@...>
>From: Robert Hollow <Robert.Hollow@...>
>Subject: Re: [PTNC] IAU resolutions about Pluto
>To: PTNC@...
>
>©
>Just for fun I have included below another resolution following the IAU
>one that was sent to me yesterday.
>
>"ASTRONOMY LOSES "MAJOR SCIENCE" STATUS, SAYS WORLD SCIENCE FEDERATION
>
>In a surprising announcement, the World Science Federation said today
>that the field of astronomy will no longer be recognized as a major
>science along with the likes of physics and chemistry. Instead it is
>being reclassified as a "trans-earth auxiliary scientific pursuit"
>according to a new taxonomy laid down by the WSF, the international
>scientific community's governing body.
>
>"This is a painful issue that we've been grappling with for some time,"
>said Dr. Jean-Sven Johansson, president of the WSF. "The study of the
>heavens has been considered a science since prehistoric times. But if
it
>were just discovered today, with all we've learned in the intervening
>millennia, there's no way we would categorize astronomy as a major
>science. It is too soft, too based on speculative theories, and too far
>removed from the everyday world."
>
>"[The reclassification] is a difficult but ultimately correct
decision,"
>read a supporting statement from the United States Council of
>Scientists. "While we are sympathetic for practitioners of astronomy,
we
>believe that the sanctity of science demands a more rigorous test for
>inclusion than merely a few centuries of tradition."
>
>The news is a bitter pill for astronomers to swallow. For years they
>have endured derision from their colleagues in the so-called 'hard'
>sciences of physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Only recently had
>astronomers believed they'd earned a measure of overdue respect from
the
>broader community of scholars. Stunning discoveries from the Hubble
>Space Telescope, plus new theories on the origins of the universe, had
>put astronomy into the forefront of public consciousness.
>
>The WSF's announcement changes all that. While astronomy will still be
>studied in schools and research institutions, its practitioners may no
>longer refer to themselves "scientists". No future Ph.D. degrees may be
>conveyed by accredited universities of science. However, a grandfather
>clause allows current doctoral students to complete their studies and
>earn degrees within 18 months.
>
>Perhaps the most significant changes are in matters of protocol when
>scientists meet. Astronomers will still be permitted to attend academic
>gatherings, but they must defer to official scientists in lectures,
>workshops, and buffet lines. They must also refrain from displaying
>items that identify themselves as scientists, such as t-shirts or
vanity
>license plates.
>
>Reaction to the WSF's announcement among astronomers was a mixture of
>disappointment and outrage.
>
>"I am very saddened by this decision," said Dr. Velikov Vonk, noted
>planetologist and author of the seminal paper 'On Renaming The Big Bang
>To Something More Dignified.' "Astronomers have added much to the rich
>history of science and to our understanding of the universe around us.
I
>pray the WSF will reconsider."
>
>"It is disheartening, but not altogether unexpected," added Arpad
>Arkabaranan, a researcher at the University of New Jersey. "Rumors have
>been circulating throughout the scientific community for several
months.
>Personally, I find it the pedantic act of a self-important panel. It
>accomplishes little more than fostering confusion among schoolchildren
>and requiring countless textbooks and encyclopedias to be rewritten,
all
>for the sake of purity of nomenclature. Does the WSF not have any more
>important issues to worry about?"
>
>Other astronomers accepted the news with less equanimity.
>
>"Who died and left them boss?" fumed William McGilly, a propulsion
>engineer with NASA's Goddard Research Center. "I wonder what science is
>next on their hit list. If I were an anthropologist or a geologist or a
>cosmetologist, I'd be putting together my resume quickly."
>
>Dr. Johansson points out that astronomy has not been kicked out of the
>scientific club entirely Rather, it will become "auxiliary scientific
>pursuit #1", the first in a new category of demi-sciences under the
>WSF's revised hierarchy. "We will rename astronomy as 'trans-earth
>studies' to reflect its new status," says Johansson. "We believe that
>after the disappointment fades, astronomers will be proud and excited
to
>act as the trailblazers in this exciting new arena."
>
>Still, the WSF's announcement could not have come at a worse time to a
>field that was felt it was close to turning the corner. Notable
>breakthroughs in coming years would have included the Mars Lander, the
>International Space Station, and the much-anticipated results of a
joint
>Canadian and Japanese task force to develop a pronunciation of Uranus
>that would not make high school students giggle. ("That was going to be
>huge for us," says Vonk
>forlornly.)
>
>The new classification takes effect on April 1st, giving astronomers
>precious little time to solve what might be their last problem as
>scientists. For years, English-speaking children have been taught the
>phrase 'My very earnest mother just served us nine pickles' to remember
>the names of the nine planets in order. ('My' stands for Mercury,
>'very' for Venus, etc.). If astronomers downgrade Pluto to a minor
solar
>object as planned, possibly as their final act before losing their own
>official status, a new mnemonic will be necessary. The solution has
>eluded astronomers and linguists from around the globe.
>
>Ponders Arkabaranan: "My very earnest mother just served us....nutmeg?
>Nachos? New England Clam Chowder? Oh, poop! Give us time, we'll think
of
>something."
>
>[nps. Thanks to Mr. R.A. Lafferty for his assistance in this story.]
>
>(JV: This was based on the rumour that the IAU declared that Pluto was
>not a planet in January 1999. The IAU denied this later. It only
added
>it to the list of trans-Neptunian objects. What is a planet anyway?)"
>
>Cheers
>
>Rob
>
>***************************************************************
>Robert Hollow
>Education Officer
>Australia Telescope National Facility
>PO Box 76 Epping NSW 1710
>AUSTRALIA
>robert.hollow@...
>Visit our Outreach and Education website at:
>http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au
>http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Robert.Hollow/
>ph +61 (0)2 9372 4247
>fax +61 (0)2 9372 4444
>***************************************************************


--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]