threads based on outside references

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

Actually, William's question below brings up something I wanted to explore
with the list.  As stated, much of the debate being carried out on the list
IS based on the referenced papers (although John has also made reference to
private communications).  How appropriate is this?  That is, for some of us
who are preparing to start classes this week we haven't the time (or the
depth of interest) to pursue this kind of in-depth study of a topic that is
such a minor piece of the curriculum (despite it's importance to the
debaters).  Yet this thread has accounted for about half the posted lines on
the list over the past two weeks.  I'm sure there are many of us who would
like to know a bit more here, but don't want to slosh through all the gory
details (over which the two sides disagree anyway).  I guess my point is
that if this fight is to be carried out on the Phys-L list, the participants
should keep in mind that their audience IS the WHOLE LIST and not just each
other.  When talking about a particular point they should copy the
appropriate passage from their web pages (when possible--figures being an
exception) so that the rest of us do not need to search through these long
papers to find the information being debated.  When the debates get bogged
down in name calling -- one person is working behind the back of the others
or someone is being intellectually dishonest, etc.-- then this needs to be
off the list, as do (disingenuous) apologies for some obscure personal
offense.

Just my opinion, (and of course I could just delete this thread  ;-)

Rick


----- Original Message -----
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>

> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Rick Tarara wrote:
>
> > The problem for list readers is that many of the references are to
> > previous private communications and to year old arguments which may well
be
> > fresh in the memory of the debaters but are lost on the rest of us.

> Rick, a quick question... have you read these two online papers?  :

>   Anderson/Eberhardt's paper on Newtonian lift
>   http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm
>
>   John Denker's critique of the above
>   http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/lift.htm
>
> If not, then much of our debate will seem meaningless.  We're discussing
> these papers, not just debating lifting force in general.
>
> Also see:
>
>   Airfoils chapter of John Denker's SEE HOW IT FLIES
>   http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/how/htm/airfoils.html
>
> And:
>
>   My own AIRFOIL MISCONCEPTIONS IN K-6 SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS,
>   http://www.amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html


*******************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE Physics Educational Software
Available for Download

see:  www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ for details
*******************************************************