Re: KE & temperature (was: Newton's 3rd law? ...)

[Ed Schweber <edschweb@IX.NETCOM.COM>]

Ed Schweber (edschweb@ix.netcom.com)
Physics Teacher at The Solomon Schechter Day School, West Orange, NJ
David Bowman writes
> Regarding Ed's latest comments on this thread:

   > Actually, I thought I was the one who was defending your post.
   >Your post

    Your current post does make this more clear. But I did interpret your
earlier post as saying that the elemenatry derivation of the connection
between molecular KE and temperature was too much of a simplification to be
worth anything.



> Your post recognized that the usual pressure on the walls >calculation for
an assumed ideal gas was not the proof it was >cracked up to be>

    I didn't mean to denigrate my proof as much you you thought I did. I was
trying to say that it was not as l.ogically precise as the proof of a
geometry theorem but nontheless still valid.
I
> I only ask that when they (pseudoproofs) are given that
> we level with the students about what we are doing and admit the
> problems.

   That I do.

   Let me propose two new questions to you and the list. It seems to me that
college physics majors are intoduced to statistical mechanics without ever
studying thermo on the level say of Zemansky's Heat and Thermodynamics.

    Is it a mistake to not have the students learn thermo first.

    Also in part of your response I didn't quote you refer to Thomas Kuhn. I
always interpreted his concept of paradigm shift as being a change dictated
by the current state of knowledge in a field. But contemporary critics of
science claim that Kuhn was saying that paradigm shifts are arbitrary and
show that scientific theories have no real claim to being objective truths.
Do other people on the list interpret Kuhn this way?

   Thanks for making me think.

Ed Schweber