Understand the work before understanding the engines; nearly every key concept here is implicit in the notion of work rather than in the notion of a particular kind of engine.”
I don’t know the relevant history of science, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something like the opposite was true: Our modern, very useful understanding of work is an abstraction that grew out of many people thinking concretely about various engines. Thinking about engines was like the homework exercises that helped people to reach and understand the concept of work.
Similarly, perhaps it is pedagogically (and conceptually) helpful to begin with the notion of a consequentialist and then generalize to outcome pumps.
I don’t know the relevant history of science, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something like the opposite was true: Our modern, very useful understanding of work is an abstraction that grew out of many people thinking concretely about various engines. Thinking about engines was like the homework exercises that helped people to reach and understand the concept of work.
Similarly, perhaps it is pedagogically (and conceptually) helpful to begin with the notion of a consequentialist and then generalize to outcome pumps.