The students are treating the theory & its outputs as a black box with which to update towards or away from if a proponent of the theory makes a claim of the form “Newtonian mechanics predicts x is y”, and you are able to measure x. The correct process to go through when getting such a result is to analyze the situation and hypothesis at multiple levels, and ask which part of the theory broke. There are some assumptions which are central to the theory, like that F=ma, or Fg∝(M1×M2)/r and others which are not so central, like boundary conditions or what is or isn’t assumed to be a fixed support. The students should ask which of these assumptions are most and least likely to be true or false, and test according to which assumptions would give them the most evidence in expectation.
The professor is trying to communicate that they assumed that the point at which the pendulum touches the bar was a fixed support. In reality this turned out to be a false assumption. He should assert the assumption which is true is F=ma
Here’s what I’d say
Me: (standing up) Wait, clearly Newtonian mechanics is true, its right there in the textbook!
Student 1: But it just made a wrong prediction! And it was a very big, very major wrong prediction!
Me: Well… idk, sometimes things do that. Like, I don’t know, Santa clause makes lots of wrong predictions, but people still believe that.
Student 1: What? Oh wait, are you trolling again?
Student 2: Oh I know! Garrett, do you want to bet about this?
Me: Bet? Um...
Student 1: A bet is a tax on bullshit, and I guess this bullshit just exited the market
Me: This is no bullshit! Fine, I’ll bet! But only if we tape the pendulum to the ground so it doesn’t get knocked over!
Student 2: No dice! Predicting when things do or don’t fall over, and their periods after the fact is an important part of any so-called “universal” theory of physics.
Me: Fine, Newtonian mechanics being the great and noble theory that it is, should be able to predict when things fall over.
Student 2: But it just failed at that task.
Me: That’s because Professor wasn’t using Garrett’s Super Amazing Newtonian Mechanics 2! With Garrett’s Second Amazing Newtonian Mechanics, I can accurately predict when things fall over!
Student 3: This will be the easiest money you’ve ever made.
Student 2: I know, I’m starting to feel bad about it.
Me: Yeah, um… about that, can we… um… use better odds for me than 1:1?
Student 2: Ok, that makes me feel better. How-about 2:3
Me: 1:3?
Student 2: Alright fine
Some math (with some help of the professor), working out bet details, and three experiments later
Student 2: In retrospect, maybe I shouldn’t have used the Jeffrey’s prior after all.
Student 1: You weren’t trolling were you?
Me: Nope, I was simply acting like I was trolling! The mistake you were making was you were treating newtonian mechanics as a black box which you update towards or away from if...
Some explaining later
Me: But the true lesson is you shouldn’t take others word for what their theory says or why.
The students are treating the theory & its outputs as a black box with which to update towards or away from if a proponent of the theory makes a claim of the form “Newtonian mechanics predicts x is y”, and you are able to measure x. The correct process to go through when getting such a result is to analyze the situation and hypothesis at multiple levels, and ask which part of the theory broke. There are some assumptions which are central to the theory, like that F=ma, or Fg∝(M1×M2)/r and others which are not so central, like boundary conditions or what is or isn’t assumed to be a fixed support. The students should ask which of these assumptions are most and least likely to be true or false, and test according to which assumptions would give them the most evidence in expectation.
The professor is trying to communicate that they assumed that the point at which the pendulum touches the bar was a fixed support. In reality this turned out to be a false assumption. He should assert the assumption which is true is F=ma
Here’s what I’d say
Me: (standing up) Wait, clearly Newtonian mechanics is true, its right there in the textbook!
Student 1: But it just made a wrong prediction! And it was a very big, very major wrong prediction!
Me: Well… idk, sometimes things do that. Like, I don’t know, Santa clause makes lots of wrong predictions, but people still believe that.
Student 1: What? Oh wait, are you trolling again?
Student 2: Oh I know! Garrett, do you want to bet about this?
Me: Bet? Um...
Student 1: A bet is a tax on bullshit, and I guess this bullshit just exited the market
Me: This is no bullshit! Fine, I’ll bet! But only if we tape the pendulum to the ground so it doesn’t get knocked over!
Student 2: No dice! Predicting when things do or don’t fall over, and their periods after the fact is an important part of any so-called “universal” theory of physics.
Me: Fine, Newtonian mechanics being the great and noble theory that it is, should be able to predict when things fall over.
Student 2: But it just failed at that task.
Me: That’s because Professor wasn’t using Garrett’s Super Amazing Newtonian Mechanics 2! With Garrett’s Second Amazing Newtonian Mechanics, I can accurately predict when things fall over!
Student 3: This will be the easiest money you’ve ever made.
Student 2: I know, I’m starting to feel bad about it.
Me: Yeah, um… about that, can we… um… use better odds for me than 1:1?
Student 2: Ok, that makes me feel better. How-about 2:3
Me: 1:3?
Student 2: Alright fine
Some math (with some help of the professor), working out bet details, and three experiments later
Student 2: In retrospect, maybe I shouldn’t have used the Jeffrey’s prior after all.
Student 1: You weren’t trolling were you?
Me: Nope, I was simply acting like I was trolling! The mistake you were making was you were treating newtonian mechanics as a black box which you update towards or away from if...
Some explaining later
Me: But the true lesson is you shouldn’t take others word for what their theory says or why.