The level of discussion

[dragonstar57]

!

Moderator Note

Moved from the C? thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55253-c/

sometimes i feel like the people of this forum place slightly more emphasis on a quantitative understanding of physics. it would be nice if those who know physics could explain their laws in a more qualitative way thus making wacky sounding laws of physics more understandable by the average person.

[mooeypoo]

sometimes i feel like the people of this forum place slightly more emphasis on a quantitative understanding of physics. it would be nice if those who know physics could explain their laws in a more qualitative way thus making wacky sounding laws of physics more understandable by the average person.

 

That's what happens usually, but we all need constructive feedback. If the attempt to explain a complex law failed (IE, people still don't understand) you need to state that you still don't understand. This happens, and causes the explainer to try again, this time maybe with a different type of explanation.

 

Sometimes, physical concepts ARE complicated to explain simply, even when you know them. It's not an attempt to be condescending, it's just trying to show that it's not so easy to explain these things. Cooperation is key; if you don't understand, say so.

[dragonstar57]

That's what happens usually, but we all need constructive feedback. If the attempt to explain a complex law failed (IE, people still don't understand) you need to state that you still don't understand. This happens, and causes the explainer to try again, this time maybe with a different type of explanation.

 

Sometimes, physical concepts ARE complicated to explain simply, even when you know them. It's not an attempt to be condescending, it's just trying to show that it's not so easy to explain these things. Cooperation is key; if you don't understand, say so.

sometimes (no offense intended to anyone) it seems like it is out of annoyance the more science experienced users have with the science noobs

[mooeypoo]

sometimes (no offense intended to anyone) it seems like it is out of annoyance the more science experienced users have with the science noobs

That shouldn't be the case. We're all human, so we might fall into the trap of impatience ourselves. But we do try, and the staff also relies on the members to point out when things go awry. If you think someone is being impatient or condescending, you should report it -- it might be that the person doing the condescending doesn't notice it, or isn't aware of it; sometimes, a staff member can point things out and have the discussion revert to its helpful tones.

 

That said, let's return to the subject at hand here, okay?

dragonstar, if you want to debate the particular issue of the treatment to "noobs", feel free to do that in a new thread.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

[swansont]

sometimes i feel like the people of this forum place slightly more emphasis on a quantitative understanding of physics. it would be nice if those who know physics could explain their laws in a more qualitative way thus making wacky sounding laws of physics more understandable by the average person.

 

That's because anything but a very basic understanding of physics requires a quantitative discussion. I can give you a qualitative overview of almost anything if I have some familiarity with it, but that's all it's going to be. The problem arises when you want an in-depth discussion of advanced physics. You can't do that qualitatively. And that's what we have been seeing recently in threads about relativity and quantum mechanics — a desire for a more complete understanding, but lacking a foundation in the basics and without math. It's a show-stopper. Analogies can only take you so far, because analogies are inherently flawed.

[ajb]

Analogies can only take you so far, because analogies are inherently flawed.

 

And in my experience a lot of misunderstandings come from the analogies rather than the actual experimental results or the mathematical calculations. Some analogies can be harmful if taken too seriously.

[Bignose]

And in my experience a lot of misunderstandings come from the analogies rather than the actual experimental results or the mathematical calculations. Some analogies can be harmful if taken too seriously.

 

ajb,

 

This is an incredibly important and insightful point. Well said.

[lemur]

And in my experience a lot of misunderstandings come from the analogies rather than the actual experimental results or the mathematical calculations. Some analogies can be harmful if taken too seriously.

Analogies address different aspects of ideas than mathematical descriptions. When I read Max Planck say that electricity would be studied as a type of gas dynamics, that was a helpful analogy because I could suddenly imagine electrons in a conductor interacting the way particles in a gas do. Quantitatively, it gave me no basis for predicting any form of electrical behavior, but no equation could facilitate the same depth of qualitative understanding, I think.

[swansont]

Analogies address different aspects of ideas than mathematical descriptions. When I read Max Planck say that electricity would be studied as a type of gas dynamics, that was a helpful analogy because I could suddenly imagine electrons in a conductor interacting the way particles in a gas do. Quantitatively, it gave me no basis for predicting any form of electrical behavior, but no equation could facilitate the same depth of qualitative understanding, I think.

 

But how do you check that you have this understanding? How do you know where the analogy fails?

[ewmon]

it would be nice if those who know physics could explain their laws in a more qualitative way thus making wacky sounding laws of physics more understandable by the average person.

I agree. A replier can often determine the appropriate level of response by discerning the level of the OP. Generally, when an OP asks a question that indicates a basic lack of understanding, they're probably not a "Professor Barnhardt" who could comprehend a "Klaatu kind of response" (here at 9:15 through 10:00).

 

For example, this OP on the 2011 Japan earthquake supposedly shifting the earth's axis 17° looks like it was answered most appropriately by swansont (posts 4 and 7) and D H (post 5) although, with all due respect, I would guess that talk about angular momentum and inertia tensors would be beyond someone who thinks that the earth's axis would shift 17° (and that we'd be alive to discuss it).

[swansont]

I agree. A replier can often determine the appropriate level of response by discerning the level of the OP. Generally, when an OP asks a question that indicates a basic lack of understanding, they're probably not a "Professor Barnhardt" who could comprehend a "Klaatu kind of response" (here at 9:15 through 10:00).

 

For example, this OP on the 2011 Japan earthquake supposedly shifting the earth's axis 17° looks like it was answered most appropriately by swansont (posts 4 and 7) and D H (post 5) although, with all due respect, I would guess that talk about angular momentum and inertia tensors would be beyond someone who thinks that the earth's axis would shift 17° (and that we'd be alive to discuss it).

 

I agree — someone for whom a 17º shift doesn't set off the BS alarm isn't going to appreciate any kind of technical answer. However, there's a broader point — someone who does understand the concept of angular momentum doesn't require and is going to be shortchanged by an oversimplified answer. It is impossible to give a response that is useful to someone with some background and simultaneously is understandable to someone without.

 

And it's a little frustrating for the messenger to be abused because he (or she) can't do the impossible. IOW it's not my fault that someone else lacks some necessary background knowledge.