jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) (12/05/89)
As Richard points out, visualization tools used in research can find their way into the classroom. They can be useful in this role because an interactive data visualization tool is almost always better than a static graph or text book picture. But one could imagine going one step better, by having visualization environments designed expressly for the purpose of education. A student could play with the physical model and immediately "see" how the system changes. Usually research tools don't allow this sort of interaction with the underlying simulation and physical model. Scientifically useful simulations are usually too large and time consuming (and always seem to stay that way) for this purpose. I think this sort of interaction is essential for education. Using what I called "ShowVis" in the classroom meets with the same problems. It may be slick and entertaining, like Star Wars. Good for the imagination. But it will probably be a prerecorded video, not very interactive. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics P.O. Box 10494 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94309 (jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-4940
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (12/06/89)
Pardon me leaving the net for a while, I have a chance to hack (Ooops!)
during the holidays, but before taking off, I think I should comment
on Jim's note about EdVis. Jim talks about having a less elaborate
system for learning. Nothing wrong with that. This was part of
the intent of Randy Smith's Alternative Reality Kit. I think that was
a great idea at the time, BUT the purpose of EdVis should be insight,
not Alternative realities (fiction).
This goes back to the Asteroids video game. The concept of "Negative
Gravity." Randy's system had this. Great to learn about acceleration,
force, but how long do you dwell on something which does not exist
in known science? It's a model. Is the point to learn about gravity
or to dwell (no pun intended) on a somewhat poor model? I have no
immediate answer, the question is open. One argument, the fiction
writer argument says, No harm, the person can create whole worlds,
ala Tolkien, you would not want to stiffle creativity would you?
Fine, let the English Departments pay for computers. 8) What's
weird is that our science may exist in ONE reality. That would
be hard for some free thinkers to swallow, but it is an option
we must be prepared to explore. Anyways, no easy answers, no one
wants to come down too hard. Do you place a "Too much time in
negative gravity" message in the system?
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Support the Free Software Foundation (FSF)markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (12/06/89)
In article <5771@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: [ eugene chats about the ARK ] >This goes back to the Asteroids video game. The concept of "Negative >Gravity." Randy's system had this. Great to learn about acceleration, >force, but how long do you dwell on something which does not exist >in known science? One of the problems that students has is that their learning tends to lack generalization. They cannot generalize what they have learned in one domain to aid them in learning in another. If the idea is to teach people about Newtonian physics, then repulsive gravity is an entirely valid concept. There is no real reason why the acceleration vectors should all point toward a given point. They do for gravitational attraction of point sources, but that is merely an instantiation of an experiment in Newtonian physics. Learning about negative gravity helps drive home the basic fundamentals that govern motion. It is useful? I think so. >It's a model. Is the point to learn about gravity >or to dwell (no pun intended) on a somewhat poor model? I have no >immediate answer, the question is open. One argument, the fiction >writer argument says, No harm, the person can create whole worlds, >ala Tolkien, you would not want to stiffle creativity would you? >Fine, let the English Departments pay for computers. 8) What's >weird is that our science may exist in ONE reality. That would >be hard for some free thinkers to swallow, but it is an option >we must be prepared to explore. Anyways, no easy answers, no one >wants to come down too hard. Do you place a "Too much time in >negative gravity" message in the system? Science is ultimately the quest for understanding. We understand sometimes by looking long and hard on what is real (what we can observe). Sometimes it takes dramatic insight to generalize concepts our observations and to actually guess at the mechanisms behind things. With very little encouragement, this could turn into a philosophy of science discussion.... I think I will pause here and regroup should such a discussion occur... >--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov > Support the Free Software Foundation (FSF) Mark VandeWettering Support Free Software
mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) (01/04/90)
In article <5771@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >... > >Randy's system had this. Great to learn about acceleration, >force, but how long do you dwell on something which does not exist >in known science? It's a model. I think it would be rather interesting to explore aspects of alternate fields. "Negative Gravity", for example, may be representative of how two negatively charged bodies might behave. There's always an application somewhere that somebody will eventually discover. >Is the point to learn about gravity >or to dwell (no pun intended) on a somewhat poor model? I have no >immediate answer, the question is open. One argument, the fiction >writer argument says, No harm, the person can create whole worlds, >ala Tolkien, you would not want to stiffle creativity would you? >Fine, let the English Departments pay for computers. No! Then the English Departments would want us to do simulations of Shakespeare! :-) >8) What's >weird is that our science may exist in ONE reality. That would >be hard for some free thinkers to swallow, but it is an option >we must be prepared to explore. I've always wondered if the present reality we preceive is the only possible one, or is it the only one in which intelligent life-forms such as us Computer Hackers can evolve from primordial slime? :-) >Anyways, no easy answers, no one >wants to come down too hard. Do you place a "Too much time in >negative gravity" message in the system? No, just switch it too positive without warning! >Another gross generalization from > >--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov -Mitchell mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP "Reality is a Human Fantasy about the REAL Universe!"
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (01/05/90)
In article <9197@cbmvax.commodore.com> mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) writes: >In article <5771@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP I wrote: >>Randy's system had this. Great to learn about acceleration, >>force, but how long do you dwell on something which does not exist >>in known science? It's a model. > >I think it would be rather interesting to explore aspects of alternate >fields. "Negative Gravity", for example, may be representative of >how two negatively charged bodies might behave. There's always an >application somewhere that somebody will eventually discover. Make two notes: 1) I am not arguing against intent, I am arguing about degree. 2) Have you considered the differences between gravitational fields and EM fields? [Appropriateness argument.] [See the Mechanical Universe tape on this, its not just a matter of changing the sign of a number.] >No! Then the English Departments would want us to do simulations of >Shakespeare! :-) Look up the AI concept of an "Agent" by Minsky. 8) I was just in Ashland Oregon where there is a noted Shakespeare festival. It seems that the various specialities in computer science do not communicate with one another. Whereas some fields are just discovering uses for computer graphics, computer graphics could learn to use a few things from other computer science specialities. One of the most distinguished (and oldest PhDs) in CS, E. Dijsktra just had a special article published in the most recent CACM on teaching CS. In it he comes down hard on the topic of "Visualization." He drops a particular attack on algorithm animation. We are now moving away from graphics into "what constitutes education?" and "what is graphics role?" Duly noted, cross-posted, and follow uped away from graphics but with comp.edu and sci.edu. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene