Re: [Phys-l] Question about Quarks and the Standard Model

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> >  I do NOT recommend the Wikipedia article,
>
> 	Ok, here comes one of my MAJOR beefs with the physics folk
> represented on this list AND in other venues of recent years.
> 	Wikipedia articles are collaborations of 'experts' in the
> appropriate fields.

This is at least something that can be easily done.  Unfortunately articles
in encyclopedias and textbooks are not as easily changed.  For Example the
article on Newton's laws in the Worldbook is certainly written at a middle
school level, but it has 2 misconceptions.  The large section on Newton's
third law talks about action and reaction, but not about forces.  Then it
uses examples of motion to illustrate NTN3.  When they get to the example of
a ball hitting a wall it is obvious that the action does not equal the
reaction.  I wrote a letter to the author (an eminent astrophysicist) about
this.  Of course he will not reply.

The problem is that the authors of these sorts of things have not educated
themselves in PER or science education.  The literature is out there and the
lists of misconceptions are there.  At least the author could have talked
about forces, which might help students rather than driving home
misconceptions, and leaving students with a complete disbelief in NTN3.  Why
do authors of lower level texts not read the literature on science
education?  This is sort of like an engineer who wishes to design a digital
radio but only understands the digital part, and has no understanding of the
radio part.  You need to understand both the content and how it is
"transmitted".

I did get an incorrect formula changed in an almanac, but it took years for
them to do it and fix the online version.  If anyone wishes to read the
Worldbook article and write the author, he might listen to someone who has
more visibility, or to a crowd of PhDs, rather than just one.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> 	There are controversial articles that are actually 'moderated' to
> hold down the writings of certified nutcases.
> 	These articles are often on religious or political topics  - NOT on
> physics topics.
> 	The physics community needs to grow up and realize that 'we' can
> indeed work together to produce a non-judgmental, neutral point of
> view (NPoV) discussion of ANY topic related to physics.
> 	It's not easy, never will be.
> 	Worthwhile endeavors rarely ARE easy.
> 	But don't we owe it to the world to TRY to create non-judgmental and
> NPoV discussions of our favorite topics - so that the world can
> benefit from our collective 'wisdom'?
> 	My humble request is that we -
>
> 			QUIT BITCHING ABOUT PHYSICS ARTICLES IN THE
WIKIPEDIA
> AND
> 				START FIXING THEM!!!!!
>
> (I would HOPE that we could do better than the religio-politico
> nutcases in this regard.)