Terminological and conceptual issues surrounding the definition of scientific terms have bothered teachers and students for many years. Some terms such as energy are not even usually defined, although they appear in different contexts of scientific communication, and others such as weight have debatable definitions, and for this reason the term weight is a great example to demonstrate general issues regarding terms and concepts. The term weight is defined in different ways, e.g., as the gravitational force or operationally as the force exerted by the body on its support. In an inertial situation, the magnitude of the gravitational force is equal to that of the support force. However, the two meanings are distinct when the object is in an accelerating situation (e.g., an accelerating elevator or on the surface of a rotating planet). Apart from these dichotomous definitions of weight, there are further language problems associated with each gravitational and operational definition of weight. This paper demonstrates these issues and asserts that arguing for which definition of weight is correct is not a viable approach to solve the language issue. The paper proposes an alternative route to deal with language issues facing weight and other related terms.

1.
I.
Galili
, “
Interpretation of students’ understanding of the concept of weightlessness
,”
Res. Sci. Educ.
25
,
51
(
March
1995
).
2.
I.
Galili
, “
Weight and gravity: Teachers’ ambiguity and students’ confusion about the concepts
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
15
,
149
162
(
March
1993
).
3.
A. L.
King
, “
Weight and weightlessness
,”
Am. J. Phys.
30
,
387
(
May
1962
).
4.
R.
Bishop
,
“Weight – An accurate, up-to-date, layman’s definition
,”
Phys. Teach.
37
,
238
329
(
1999
). [See also the “Figuring Physics” cartoon by Paul Hewitt from Sept. 2013, and the subsequent letter to the editor by Wong Chee Leong in Dec. 2013 along with Hewitt’s response.]
5.
R. D.
Knight
,
Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach
, 3rd ed. (
Pearson Education Inc.
,
Boston
,
2013
).
6.
R.
Taibu
,
D.
Rudge
, and
D.
Schuster
, “
Textbook presentations of weight: Conceptual difficulties and language ambiguities
,”
Phys. Rev. ST Educ. Res.
11
,
010117
(
June
2015
).
7.
R. C.
Morrison
, “
Weight and gravity — The need for consistent definitions
,”
Phys. Teach.
37
,
51
52
(
Jan.
1999
).
8.
G.
Tural
,
A.
Akdeniz
, and
N.
Alev
, “
Effect of 5E teaching model on student teachers’ understanding of weightlessness
,”
J. Sci. Educ. Technol.
19
,
470
(
Oct.
2010
).
9.
A. P.
French
,
“On weightlessness,” letter to the editor
,
Am. J. Phys.
63
,
105
(
Feb.
1995
).
10.
R.
Brown
, “
Weight—Don’t use the word at all
,”
Phys. Teach.
37
,
241
(
April
1999
).
11.
R. A.
Serway
,
Physics for Scientists and Engineers
, 8th ed. (
Brooks/Cole
,
Belmont, CA
,
2010
).
12.
W.
Bauer
and
G. D.
Westfall
,
University Physics with Modern Physics
(
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
,
2011
).
13.
D. S.
Giancoli
,
Physics for Scientists and Engineers: With Modern Physics
, 3rd ed. (
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
2000
).
14.
F. W.
Sears
, “
Weight and weightlessness
,”
Phys. Teach.
1
,
20
23
(
Jan.
1963
).
15.
E. F.
Mortimer
and
C. N.
El-Hani
,
Conceptual Profiles: A Theory of Teaching and Learning Scientific Concepts
(
Springer Science & Business Media
,
2014
).
16.
A. B.
Arons
, “
Achieving wider scientific literacy
,”
Daedalus
112
,
91
122
(
April
1983
).
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.