در اينجا بخشي از مكاتبه اي را كه بين من و دكتر آرش رد و بدل شد مي آورم:

نامه ي مينجيق:

سلام
قبل از هرچيزي به شما و دانشجويان نسل جديد بابت اين كتاب تبريك مي گويم. در ادامه ي بحث شما  نكته اي را مي خواهم اضافه كنم. دانشجويان بايد يادبگيرند كه فهم از فيزيك لايه لايه حاصل مي شود. همين طور كه جلو مي روند درك آنها از مفاهيمي كه آموخته اند
با حل مسئله هاي پرشمار و ترتيب دادن ازمايش هاي ذهني تكميل و تعميق مي شود. گاهي پس از آن كه مفهومي جديد مي اموزند مفهوم قبلي برايشان جا مي افتد و به اهميت تاكيد بر آن پي مي برند. خيلي مهم هست كه اين پيوستگي را درك كنند. تاكيدم بر اين نكته از آن روست كه گاهي دانشجويان پرتلاش دچار وسواس در فهميدن مي شوند و جلوتر نمي توانند بروند. بايد به آنها تاكيد كرد كه اين راهش نيست. راهش آن است كه همين مفاهيم را در ذهن نگاه دارند وبا آنها بازي بازي كنند و مرتب بين اين مفاهيم و مفاهيم جديد كه مي آموزند ارتباط برقرار سازند.
به نظر من شناخت كيفي علاوه بر آن چه كه اشاره شد كاربردهاي ديگري نيز دارد. شناخت كيفي خيلي وقت ها كمك مي كند تا اشتباهي را كه در محاسبه داشتيم تصحيح كنيم همين طور كمك مي كند تا در رويارويي با مسايل پيچيده تر راه حل هوشمندانه تري بيابيم.

با تشكر از كتاب زيبايتان. اگر اجازه بدهيد متن اين اي-ميل را من در وبلاگ قيل و قال علم منتشر سازم.
ياسمن

بخشي از جواب دكتر آرش:

Dear Yasaman
I totally agree with you that intuition in physics is obtained gradually, step by step as we acquire insight. My discussion  focuses on the approach to physics education in FORMAL courses. I feel that, insistence on qualitative teaching (I have problem with the word "qualitative" since it does not address the issue and people have many different understanding of it. I mean by it is what is called as "Mafhoomi") is way overstretched and has become a cover up for doing less. Of course, there are professors that they go out of their way to try to make the topic tangible to the student, but that is an individual approach. The question is how to device a method that is more general and effective for every teacher and render good result. In our community, there is an uncalled fear of "mathematical" and sometimes our colleagues fall in this trap. Otherwise, intuition is almost everything in physics. My point is that it cannot be taught in classroom, it has to acquired through other means. One being problem solving, developing ability for critical thinking and so forth. One way that I am aware of it is One- by One student contact. However, this is method becomes less practical in our universities.
I will keep your point in mind. It is good and has to be fitted in our discussions.
 
You are more than welcome to post our correspondences on your lovely blog pages. You don't need to ask for my permission. I know you, your fairness and being considerate, and your good intentions. 
Besides your kind remark on the book, how did you find it? O.k. it is unfair to ask such a question, having no time to take a good look at it.
Anticipating your reply
Firooz

بخشي از پاسخ مينجيق:

Dear Dr Arash,
I will be happy to read and follow your discussion on this matter but I may not
be able to contribute much.
Some point regarding the first law of Newton:
Let us forget about the second and third laws and suppose Newton had formulated only this single law. The law contains far more than the definition of inertial frame. Let us suppose the system contains more than one particle that all are isolated from the rest of the world and each other . (i.e., they do not interact with each other.)
One can choose one of the particles to define the inertial frame. The first law of Newton implies that the rest of particles also have constant velocities in this frame. This is quite a non-trivial conclusion that can be extracted from the first law of Newton alone.
Of course if we include the second law emphasis on the this implication of first law is unnecessary.
Do you agree?
Best wishes,
Yasaman

بخشي از جواب دكتر ارش: