Re: Energy, etc

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

William Beaty wrote:

> ... I strongly believe that doing all of the above [not allowing the

> substance-like model of energy] will cause students significant
> harm.  I view it as the equivalent of destroying imperfect tools
> in the quest for a perfect one.  Screwdrivers don't work as
> wrenches, get rid of them!  A hammer cannot turn a screw, so
> ban its use! Only a perfect tool which always works in all
> situations can be tolerated, and we end up with no tools at all. ...

A nice comparison; I do use a large screwdriver as a hammer when
the hammer can not be found. I think that somebody who is actively
trying to improve our energy related vocabulary would be much
more effective (in terms of influencing more teachers) by publishing
an introductory physics textbook. Such text would demonstrate
that better words can be used consistently. It would not be an easy
task to turn this suggestion into reality, but it is worth trying.

Another suggestion, for somebody who has time and desire to
produce an impact on physics education, is to trace the history of
the concept of energy. Start with its early "living force" incarnation
and proceed up to modern times. Not just a repetition of what has
already been said but a critical analysis of old approaches. Another
very demanding task. (Does anybody know a book or article of
that kind?) The authors do not have to real historians (with access
to sources in original languages etc.); a review of how energy was
presented in popular textbooks since late 1700's would provide an
objective and informative framework for fresh comments and
speculations.

Yes, it is easy to tell somebody else what to do.
Ludwik Kowalski