Neither blood circulation nor diffusion has an inherent correct ontology; predicates from both direct and emergent process categories apply to each¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Expert models treat blood circulation as an emergent process, and emergent-process predicates such as simultaneous, unconstrained, and non-terminating apply to circulation while direct-process predicates can apply to diffusion. → Ayush Gupta 2008

Evidence¶

Ayush Gupta 2008¶

Ayush Gupta, David Hammer, Edward F. Redish. (2008). The Case for Dynamic Models of Learners' Ontologies in Physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/hlns20

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Addressing the SO framework's flagship contrast between blood flow (direct process) and diffusion (emergent process), the authors show experts model blood as a non-linear fluid governed by Navier-Stokes equations and argue predicates cross both categories. They conclude "neither blood circulation nor diffusion has an inherent ‘correct’ ontology".

"In sum, neither blood circulation nor diffusion has an inherent ‘correct’ ontology. Like plasmas, electrons, waves, and vibrations, expert understanding of circulation or diffusion cannot be captured by a single ontological description or described by a single category of ontological predicates."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Expert physicists apply matter-based predicates to non-material concepts in professional discourse — related
• Everyday language routinely and productively crosses ontological categories — a broader claim this one bears on
• Experts' ontological choices about the same physical phenomenon are context-dependent — related
• Novices can and do reason across ontological categories in everyday and scientific contexts — related
• Material difficulty is not determined solely by element number and interactivity — related