A ascensão e queda da teoria do calórico
The aim of this paper is to make a historical analysis of the appearance of the caloric theory, its explanatory power and its decline. Unlike many texts disclose, we will show that Joseph Black was not the first to investigate the heat as a substance and that the experiments of Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) were not crucial to the abandonment of this theory. The explanatory power of the caloric will be shown by analysis of extracts from the book of dissemination of Science authored by Janet Marcet. We believe that the knowledge of these facts will help to better understand the origin of many terms that we use in the study of the calorimetry, besides alerting teachers and students of the historical claims errors found in textbooks.
A história da evolução do conceito físico de energia como subsídio para o seu ensino e aprendizagem – parte II
Este artigo tem como objetivo mostrar os aspectos essenciais do desenvolvimento do conceito fisico de energia, para subsidiar a escolha dos professores quanto a melhor maneira de compreender e ensinar esse conceito. Estudaremos o pensamento de alguns dos principais cientistas que se interessaram sobre este tema e os debates criados. O artigo esta dividido em duas partes. Nesta primeira parte, analisaremos algumas contribuicoes de Thomas Young, Johann Bernoulli, Galileu Galilei, Rene Descartes e Leibniz. Alem disso, mostraremos como se deu a evolucao do conceito fisico de energia no contexto das maquinas e para alem da mecânica. A ideia principal que norteia a discussao do texto e o fato do desenvolvimento do conceito fisico de energia estar intimamente relacionado com o desenvolvimento do principio de que ha uma “constância no meio de mudanca”. Ou seja, algo sempre fica constante apesar das mudancas do meio.
The New ‘U’
Today's talk about tenure must be framed within broader discussions about the role of the university. Our university system is now over one hundred years old, the “Old-Time College” is gone, the “cold war” university is no longer viable, and the foundations of the modern “multiversity” are cracking, so it is time to talk about change. But change is not necessarily reform, and resisting change probably will not keep things the way they are, so academics must understand the forces reshaping the university. Whenever I listen to colleagues defend the status quo by saying that the United States has a university system that is the envy of the world, I hear echoes of the Detroit automobile industry's casual dismissal of foreign competitors in the early 1960s. The decision not to change did not preserve the auto industry, and it is unlikely to preserve public universities as we know them. The current debates about tenure began with ideological attacks on “tenured radicals” who used their secure jobs to subvert conservative cultural values. The attack on tenure gathered steam as fiscal hawks in financially-strapped states looked for ways to save money and found huge state university systems with budgets to match. When asked why he robbed banks, the legendary Willie Sutton replied, “Because that's where the money is.” When asked why they are robbing tenure, legislators, regents, and administrators reply, “Because that's where the money is.” Personnel costs are a large share of university budgets and tenure ties the hands of administrators and legislators accustomed to using purse strings to control universities.