|
A recently published correspondence by Stephen J. Hawkes on teaching equilibrium calculations troubles me (1). Hawkes dismisses equilibrium calculations as mere algorithms, best deferred until the student “can use computer programs”. I find it difficult to believe that a computer program enhances understanding.
From a chemist’s point of view, the equilibrium condition is a limit, a limit that (because of stochastic considerations) does not exist. It might be better to make the reaction quotient statement using < or > but the use of those relations is delayed until quantum mechanics.
Hawkes says, “Equilibrium is a rare phenomena except in the activities
of chemists in their laboratories” (1). “Thou know’st ‘tis common” (2). Even business and economics students learn about a Nash equilibrium. This Journal has published a number of exercises purporting to introduce the abstract notion—concept—of equilibrium. However, such activities do involve some arithmetic.
The Editorial in the issue immediately following the published correspondence is equally disturbing (3). John Moore seems to share Hawkes’ antipathy toward arithmetic.
This reader will persist in his “concept” of chemistry as an experimental science. I believe chemistry is an experimental science involving questions of how much, how many, to what extent, in what sequence: questions answered with numbers. Chemistry should be taught as such.
Literature Cited
- Hawkes, Stephen J. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1381.
- Shakespeare, W. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark 1.2.72.
- Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 7.
|
Citation
Always in the