The Context of Thought Experiments in Physics Learning

This paper takes a cognitive perspective in an attempt to analyze mental mechanisms involved in contextual learning. In the following, it is suggested that contextualized environments evoke mental mechanisms that support reasoning about what if, imaginary situations – utilizing a powerful mental mechanism known from the history of physics as thought experiments (TEs). Thought experiments are associated with visualization of data and imagery that originate in implicit knowledge.This paper suggests that thought experiments rely on sensory memories constructed by the learner during past experience. Such sensory memories are activated by the context. The first part of the paper deals with the definition, nature, incidents, and experimental data related to implicit knowledge and TEs. Empirical results are then analyzed in order to explore the role of sensory memories and underlying schemata in TEs, thereby suggesting a set of embodied schemata that act as implicit assumptions and provide context-dependent epistemological primitives that underlie imaginary events in a manner that will statistically match the outer world.

[1]  John D. Norton,et al.  Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? , 1996, Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

[2]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  A Learning Environment for Mental Visualization in Electromagnetism , 1997, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[3]  Stephen Klassen.  The Science Thought Experiment: How Might it be Used Profitably in the Classroom? , 2006 .

[4]  M. Reiner,et al.  On the Limitations of Thought Experiments in Physics and the Consequences for Physics Education , 2003 .

[5]  E. Mach,et al.  Popular scientific lectures , 1897 .

[6]  James Robert Brown,et al.  The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments in the Natural Sciences , 1993 .

[7]  A. Einstein.  Relativity: The Special and the General Theory , 2015 .

[8]  J. Brown.  Why Empiricism Won't Work , 1992, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[9]  J. Piaget.  Child's Conception of Movement and Speed , 1970 .

[10]  Kathleen V. Wilkes,et al.  Real People: Personal Identity without Thought Experiments , 1988 .

[11]  Tamar Szabó Gendler,et al.  Galileo and the Indispensability of Scientific Thought Experiment , 1998, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[12]  James Robert Brown,et al.  The Promise and Perils of Thought Experiments , 2006 .

[13]  F. Allard.  Chapter 2 Cognition, Expertise, and Motor Performance , 1993 .

[14]  An Underlying Materialistic Commitment in Naive Thought , 1992 .

[15]  M. Chi,et al.  Naive Physics Reasoning: A Commitment to Substance-Based Conceptions , 2000 .

[16]  Ernst Mach,et al.  Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry , 1975 .

[17]  James Robert Brown,et al.  Thought experiments since the scientific revolution , 1986 .

[18]  John D. Norton,et al.  Thought Experiments in Einstein's Work , 1991 .

[19]  Mark L. Johnson.  The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning , 1987 .

[20]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics , 1998 .

[21]  A. Stinner,et al.  Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: Toward a more humanistic science education , 1995 .

[22]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[23]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students , 1995 .

[24]  Arthur Stinner,et al.  The Large Context Problem (LCP) Approach , 2006 .

[25]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning , 2000 .

[26]  M. Just,et al.  Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. , 1993 .