Talk:Physics/wip/leadproposal2

message: :In everyday terms, physics is the science that deals with the description of the world around us, and attempts to understand how objects interact with each other - colloquially through principles such as forces, energy, action, etc.
:Different people, however, have different definitions of what they regard physics to be, and another common definition is that, "physics is the science of nature" [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This is more commonly heard in more formal or academic settings, and further discussion of these issues are presented in the Introduction section.
[I then suggest that the first topic discussed in the intro be "issues of definition" (or something similar), where we discuss the reasons as to why there is no universally accepted definition, and possibly describe the arguments that have been made for and against each of the two definitions (whilst tying not to introduce any bias in favour of either definition).]
References
[1] H.D. Young & R.A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics: 11th Edition: International Edition (2004), Addison Wesley. Chapter 1, section 1.1, page 2.
[2] Feynman, Leighton, & Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1977), Addison Wesley. Chapter 2, pages 2-1 and 2-2.
[3] Albert Einstein (1936), Physics and Reality, summarized in his Essays in Physics (1950) New York, Philosophical Library p. 51
[4] Albert Einstein (1918, Max Planck's 60th birthday) "Principles of Research" in Ideas and Opinions, ISBN 0-517-55601-4 (1954) p.226.
[5] W.V.O. Quine, Theories and Things (1981), Harvard University Press. Page 99.
[6] Steve Holzner, Physics for Dummies (2006), Wiley. Chapter 1, pages 7-8. See also http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0764554336/ref=isib_dp_pt/102-1190768-8928948#reader-link, Amazon Online Reader: Physics For Dummies (For Dummies(Math & Science)), last viewed 24 November 2006.
Krea 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Proposal '''2'''

message: --Strawberry Island 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is sure the simplest start for the article 

message: This proposed introduction has several problems. To me it seems vague and ill-defined:
"physics is the science that deals with the description of the world around us"
This part of the first sentence is conceptually flawed.  It claims that there is already in existence a "description of the world around us" and that physics then comes upon the scene with the intent of "dealing with it." The writer's intent was most likely to say something else, and s/he should work to make the words better match the original intention.
"and attempts to understand how objects interact with each other"
The second part of the first sentence again anthropomorphizes physics and creates in this reader the impression that physics is stuck in an intellectual process that has thus far been unsuccessful, and that the process deals with something called "objects."  The root meaning of "object" is "something thrown in the way." Its first meaning is "a thing that can be seen or touched." To me, the term "object" tends to rule out most of what physics actually deals with.
"- colloquially through principles such as forces, energy, action, etc."
Saying "colloquially" indicates that the terms of reference about to be mentioned are to be regarded as flawed and only suitable for use in communicating with non-experts.
The word "principles" is dangerously ambiguous in this context. Does it mean (1) "the cause of something"? (2) "a natural tendency"? (3) "A fundamental motivating force upon which others are based"? (4) "The law of nature by reason of which a thing operates, as 'capillary attraction is the principle of a blotter'"? (5) "The method of a thing's operation, as in, 'the principle of a gasoline engine is internal combustion"?
"Different people, however, have different definitions of what they regard physics to be, and another common definition is that, "physics is the science of nature" [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This is more commonly heard in more formal or academic settings, and further discussion of these issues are presented in the Introduction section."
Once again the prose seems to damn with faint praise. It seems to imply that there is real physics and then some "science of nature" that is discussed in the rarefied world of formal discourse and academia.
I think I can see (assuming I have read between the lines properly) how this introductory passage could be put in better form, but as it stands I think it is seriously flawed, sorry to say. P0M 00:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the forest level