Just a question...

On Aug 31, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Steve Bolter wrote:

> 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.
>
In the last sentence about, don't you mean to say: "However, when used
in Physics, these words are NOT identical in meaning to the
corresponding word in the local common language."?

> 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]
>
>
>
> About this list:
>
> Purpose: an international forum for discussing aspects of learning in
> science, and for circulating news about publications, projects, etc.,
> related to this theme.
>
> Membership: open to teachers at any level, researchers into learning
> in science and related fields, and any others interested in the topic.
>
> This list gives you the choice of receiving e-mails individually, or
> as a single daily digest of all messages circulated that day.
>
> homepage:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
> bookmarks to other sites:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
> bibliography on learning in science
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
>
> This list is a moderated discussion group (ie postings are vetted for
> relevance to the group theme).
>
> Moderator: Dr. Keith Taber, Faculty of Education, University of
> Cambridge.
> http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
>
>
> to join an un-moderated general science education discussion list,
> please visit:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/science-education/
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr., Ph. D. Phone: (208)426-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)426-3775
Department of Physics/MCF418 Fax: (208)426-4330
Boise State University ddykstra@...
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper: GHB, Uilleann
<http://www.boisestate.edu/physics/Dykstra/Dyks.html>

"The trouble is, in science you never get to see the yak."
--D. Dykstra, Science for Monks Project, 2006

"...a physics major has to be trained to use today's physics whereas
a physics teacher has to be trained to see a development of
physical theories in ... students' minds."--Hans Niedderer in
"International Conference on Physics Teachers' Education
Proceedings" Dortmund: University of Dortmund, p. 151, 1992.

"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern
methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the
holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside
from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without
this the plant goes to wreck and ruin without fail."
--A. Einstein in "Autobiographical Notes," 1949.

"Now there are two theorems that form together the cardinal
hinge on which the whole structure of physical science turns.
These theorems are: (1) THERE IS A REAL OUTER WORLD WHICH
EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF OUR ACT OF KNOWING, and, (2) THE
REAL OUTER WORLD IS NOT DIRECTLY KNOWABLE."--M. Planck in
"Where Is Science Going?," 1932. (EMPHASIS in the original)

"As a result of modern research in physics, the ambition and
hope, still cherished by most authorities of the last century,
that physical science could offer a photographic picture and
true image of reality had to be abandoned." --M. Jammer in
"Concepts of Force," 1957.

"If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we
make reality the basis of our philosophy? ...But we cannot
distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory.
..it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality,
because we do not know what reality is independent of a
theory."--S. Hawking in "Black Holes and Baby Universes" 1993.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++