Re: [Phys-l] What's in a Touch?

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

Feynman's experience on this is a great read. I encourage everyone to  
take a look at his exploits in reviewing texts for the state of  
California. Not sure which book it was. Anyway, such problems are  
manifest. I used to use Mario Iona, deceased but used to be with  
University of Denver, as a reviewer for much of what I wrote. He was  
relentless in countering bad science. He was a kind and gentle person  
(invited me to his house for tea to discuss his comments!), but you  
wouldn't know it from talking to people in science education. At  
conferences, a presenter's greatest fear would be that Mario would  
rise and ask a question during the presentation. Very sad, actually,  
because they would rather escape in ignorance than confront what might  
be wrong with what they were doing. An executive at an unnamed  
curriculum development group once told me, after I expressed interest  
in having Mario do a review, was, "Fine. The camel has his nose under  
the tent and you're inviting him in." Bad state of affairs when  
science educators don't want to be certain their science is correct.  
Yes, it's difficult for someone to tell you you don't have it quite  
right, but the alternative...............?   Another comment from  
Mario that supports what you say here. He told me that he was upset  
that so many books and other resources listed him as a consultant, yet  
followed maybe half of his recommendations. That left the impression  
that he somehow approved of what was in the resource.

And a personal experience: I was at a NARST (National Association for  
Research in Science Teaching) conference and looked through a poster  
session. One author, a relatively big name in science education, had a  
mistake in his description of gases. He said that when you heat a gas,  
the molecules "need more room and therefore expand." Now, I was young  
and not famous (now old and not famous), so I respectfully asked him  
if I could talk about what I saw as incorrect science in his  
materials. He listened politely and then turned away to talk to  
someone else, without any more acknowledgement. The published paper  
later had the same error. So, it's not just textbook authors who have  
a problem with getting the concepts straight.

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.


On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:51 AM, John Clement wrote:

> The web page content was apparently designed by
> willisb@telusplanet.net
> So anyone who has looked at the page could E-mail this person with  
> exactly
> what you think of it.  Be specific.  Also your comments could go on  
> this
> list, or copy me at clement@hal-pc.org
>
> Your academic credentials and a link to your university web page  
> would also
> serve as a useful bludgeon.  This sort of thing needs to be exposed,
> embarrassed, and terminated.
>
> My take is that it could be mad more accurate, but the idea of touch  
> simply
> doesn't have any meaning when you are talking about 2 atoms.  They  
> don't
> really have a surface.  Indeed the concept of touch as we use it
> macroscopically has no meaning in the sub-microscopic world.  It  
> could be
> redefined I suppose.
>
> Apparently the designer also puts out other web pages on science,  
> and if
> they are as bad as this drivel, he needs to be firmly chastised.  We  
> need to
> try to make the textbooks and other physics sources more correct.   
> Texbooks
> are intractable because the publishers stone wall and don't make the  
> needed
> changes.  Read Feynman if you need evidence here.  But encyclopedias  
> and
> other references can be changed, and I have even been an agent for  
> such
> change on occasion.  John Hubisz put out a good report on texts, but  
> the
> publishers then claim the new editions are OK, but they lie through  
> their
> teeth.
>
> Hmm, I was just struck by the phrase "lie through their teeth" and  
> wondered
> where it originally came from.  A quick web search revealed only
> speculation.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
> > Teachers often ask me, when I point out what's wrong with the
> > explanations in their textbooks, how this can happen. Unfortunately
> > it's as you said--writers with limited science background just copy
> > from bad sources or even somewhat reputable sources without knowing
> > they are propagating wrong science. It's always interesting to see
> > electrons in orbit around a nucleus, but their version of nuclear
> > force is a new one for me!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:26 PM, John Clement wrote:
> >
> > > This is the drivel they are feeding the students!  Actually the  
> > > other
> > > physics sections of this schools web site are not really bad at all.
> > > Actually a good Canadian expression in keeping with the location.
> > >
> > > John M. Clement
> > > Houston, TX