Talk:Naïve physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Is this the same as intuitive physics? I think that Stephen Pinker prefers that term in his popularisations of evolutionary psychology. Analogous are intuitive engineering, intuitive biology, intuitive economics -- Alan Peakall 17:29 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The article stub as-is certainly gives that impression. I have encountered the term in a different setting, though, in a late-70s or so artificial intelligence article by Patrick Hayes called the Naïve Physics Manifesto.

Here is a link:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/publications/masters/node28.html

I also think that folk something-or-other is a synonym for intuitive something-or-other, as in folk psychology, a term often used in cognitive science. -- Are Sørli 18:01, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Exactly what is this page about? "Naive" is a word generally regarded as unfavorable in learned circles; to use it in regard to the work of Newton and Feynman et al. produces a strong impression that somebody has an ax to grind. There could be such a thing as naive physics in reality: the ideas of physics that people hold intuitively (or anyway it looks like intuition). What makes this page most remarkably silly to an outsider is that its first example is a crucial and famous rejection of the naive physics of Aristotle. But I don't mean to slight Newton, the second example, in his major piece of counter-intuitive work, which apparently is naive because he couldn't afford a spectrophotometer. Dandrake 21:37, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, after two months, if no one can defend that list of "simple models" that is in fact a list of highly sophisticated (though now in part obsolete) physics, then I'll just delete it. For theories that turned out to be too simple to last until now (when we know everything and nothing we say will in the future be found too simple), there's always Obsolete scientific theories (to which I'll make a pointer), not that it doesn't have its own problems. Dandrake 00:06, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

No one having defended them, I removed the examples of obsolete or deliberately simplified physical models as used by incredibly non-naive physicists, and put in a list of actual folk physical ideas. I don't understand how the old list fit into either folk physics or the AI study referred to.

I'd like to put in a modern example: the Stanford fans' version of The Play of some years ago, in which a football was passed to the side (the rules forbidding a forward pass), and the play was ruled valid; but the forward motion of the passer actually caused the ball to be moving downfield (say the Stanfordians), and the play should have been called back. But the above shows that one can't state it clearly without too much verbosity.

We need more on the AI work which tries to codify common-sense knowledge. Dandrake 06:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be okay to add the widespread idea that the earths rotation causes gravity?

[edit] Citation Needed?!?

"A dropped object falls straight down.[citation needed]" Citation needed? CITATION NEEDED?!? WHY in the world would a citation be needed here? And who or what should we cite? It is silly things like this that make Wikipedia unrespected in academia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.201.141.146 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm confused about that one, too. Is someone looking for proof that people think this, or proof that it isn't true? As none of these other list items have been tagged, I'm just going to remove that one.

Zadeez 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)