greg wrote: > Erik Max Francis wrote: >> My point was, and still is, that if this question without further >> context is posed to a generally educated laymen, the supposedly wrong >> answer that was given is actually _correct_. > > Except that they probably don't understand exactly how and > why it's correct. E.g. they will likely expect a 2kg hammer > to fall to the floor twice as fast as a 1kg hammer, which > isn't anywhere near to being true.
Well, sure. But if the point of the question is to just point at ignorance of physics concepts among the general population to make people feel like jackasses, then that's not very hard to do. It's also not very constructive. The bigger picture is that if the sole purpose is to shame people without physics knowledge (because really, what other point is there for asking such trick questions), the fact that the questioner phrased the question poorly enough and had to know that the context would be misinterpreted -- so that, oops, the naive answer is actually _correct_ in context -- that he's the only person who should be ashamed. -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis To be refutable is not the least charm of a theory. -- Friedrich Nietzsche -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
