That said, the particular concept you see me arguing is one that I don't view as legitimate, having no practical application as an intangible, undemonstrable force. You can show people torque generating rotary motion. Lateral force can be shown to move objects. Same with pressure or mass under gravity. You can demonstrate fluid dynamics visually and easily explain application. But the passive force in question here is much more easily explained as resisting force than applying any. Just makes a lot more sense practically, is why we call supports supports, not anti-gravitational variable force applicators. Our homes are full of load bearing walls, which will never be referred to as walls that push the roof up against the force of gravity.
Unfortunately, if one adopts nonstandard terminology or explanations for discussing established concepts, then misunderstandings, and likely hard feelings will develop.
Intuitive or not, the idea of passive forces is a standard concept in physics. Not just that, but it is a necessary concept based on one of the three basic laws of motion. It may not make sense to some people to talk about a load-bearing wall pushing up against the roof it is supporting, but if those persons wish to communicate the concepts accurately then using nonstandard terminology or attempting to construct a contradictory explanation is not a recipe for success.
It is unfortunately true that not all accurate concepts are intuitive.
For two objects having the same momentum you want to be struck by the heavier object since it will inflict less damage.
It is certainly an oversimplification--it's oversimplified so much that it can not be correct. While it is true that if two objects have the same momentum, the slower moving (heavier) object has less POTENTIAL to do damage, it's not a given that either will do damage at all, nor is it a given that there will be enough difference in the energy to make a practical difference.
I certainly won't argue that, but my own life experience has shown me that people who can apply systematic, structured methods they learned in one discipline in novel ways, or especially in a universal manner, are the exception, not the rule.
In my experience, people are either problem solvers/troubleshooters or they aren't.
That doesn't mean that a person who is good at problem solving/troubleshooting will automatically be good at solving any kind of problems regardless of the field of study involved. But it does tend to mean that if you have a problem that needs solving, you're better off taking a problem solver and giving that person the background involved to get "smart" on the topic rather than starting with someone who has a lot of knowledge relating to the topic at hand and trying to teach that person to be a good problem solver.
****************************************
I hate this kind of discussion because it almost inevitably degrades in a predictable manner.
The people with lots of experience but little formal study automatically assume that anyone with a degree must be inexperienced in the real world and usually make the accusation explicitly as if education is proof of lack of real world experience. There are people like that, but there are also people who have both experience and education.
The people with lots of education point out the inevitable errors that occur when someone who hasn't had a lot of education starts trying to talk about a topic is difficult to discuss properly without a certain level of formal training.
Both sides take the comments as personal attacks--which, admittedly is a reasonable response at least some of the time. Then it's time for the anatomy measuring contests to begin. And that entrenches both sides even more firmly in their respective positions and generates more ire.
The bottom line is that there are highly educated people who are practically useless. And there are people with lots of real-world experience who have no understanding of basic scientific principles.
But there are also highly educated people with tons of real-world experience and practical knowledge. Just as there are people with little formal education who have learned a lot about science through dedicated informal study.
I would like to point out one issue in spite of the fact that I know it will make some people angry. Excepting the very few people who are in the same intellectual category as Isaac Newton and have the ability to develop and formalize general scientific principles on their own, without help, it is unlikely that a person will be able to gain a reasonably accurate understanding of science without some significant level of study whether that study is formal or informal. Even Newton studied formally and built upon the foundation that study provided. Anyway, a person with real-world experience may be able to apply it constructively, but if they resist/avoid any sort of scientific study, it does mean that their understanding of the underlying science will be limited or flawed and it means that their ability to explain those foundational principles to others will also be limited.
The same sort of thing applies to a highly educated person who doesn't want hands-on type of work that would provide them with real-world experience. I've run across some highly educated folks who seem to revel in doing all their work inside their head and then tasking underlings to do the actual implementation. They are going to be lost when they have to do something approaching practical no matter how well they understand the science.
I don't have a good solution for the inevitable impasse because any decent solution involves accurate self-assessment and, unfortunately (regardless of education or experience level) the people most in need of accurate self-assessment are actually the ones most unlikely to be able to accurately self-assess.
That said, it is certainly possible for people in either camp to engage in scientific study or to "get their hands dirty" and acquire real world experience if they are so inclined.
