I had this lecture sometime ago and I spotted two interesting things.
1) The lecturer was explaining about science and how it is about the cycle of hypothesis, theory and experiment. That was all fine and well, but then the example he gave really made me straighten up in my seat. You see, he was giving an example about hypothesis:
"So, let's say we have hypothesis about speed; that it is distance over time. We test it, and the experiment agrees, so we have a theory that speed is distance over time."
The fatal mistake here is that speed is a concept that we devised to substantiate the notion of rate of change of distance. Speed is by definition distance over time; it is self-contained truth that is indisputable.
To be fair, the lecturer has that 'things that I regret almost as soon as I said it' look. He realised his fatal mistake but went on without rectifying it to avoid confusion.
2) The lecturer has this interesting quiz: "Is this true or false: an object with non-zero acceleration can never stop and stay stopped."
Again, the key lies with definition. Since the object's movement is already defined as non-stationary (non-zero acceleration), of course it can never stop, neither can it stay stopped. So is there a point of asking the question, unless it is epistemology class and/or the absurdity is intended?
Oh well.
1) The lecturer was explaining about science and how it is about the cycle of hypothesis, theory and experiment. That was all fine and well, but then the example he gave really made me straighten up in my seat. You see, he was giving an example about hypothesis:
"So, let's say we have hypothesis about speed; that it is distance over time. We test it, and the experiment agrees, so we have a theory that speed is distance over time."
The fatal mistake here is that speed is a concept that we devised to substantiate the notion of rate of change of distance. Speed is by definition distance over time; it is self-contained truth that is indisputable.
To be fair, the lecturer has that 'things that I regret almost as soon as I said it' look. He realised his fatal mistake but went on without rectifying it to avoid confusion.
2) The lecturer has this interesting quiz: "Is this true or false: an object with non-zero acceleration can never stop and stay stopped."
Again, the key lies with definition. Since the object's movement is already defined as non-stationary (non-zero acceleration), of course it can never stop, neither can it stay stopped. So is there a point of asking the question, unless it is epistemology class and/or the absurdity is intended?
Oh well.
No comments:
Post a Comment