Re: Misconceptions

[rshotwel@ivy.tec.in.us (Allen Shotwell)]

I agree. The latest version of the list has brought some questions to mind
(mostly because of my own ignorance), but before I start a myriad of
discussions for each one I wonder about, I like to see what Rick suggests.
Let the orginal contributers clarify details and reference proof. 


> I think we need to step back for a minute and examine the purpose of
> Ludwik's list.  If the intent was to produce a definitive list of textbook
> misconceptions--that isn't happening.  One person's misconception (at the
> graduate level) is defensible 'good' physics at the high-school level
> (gravity and the shuttle).  The 'partial' misconceptions are wide open to
> interpretation--greenhouse effect for example:  The transparent/opaque
> effect is there, just not primarily responsible for the temperature rise in
> a real, terrestrial greenhouse.  Some stated misconceptions are maybe not
> even really wrong.
>
> The exercise IS valuable in that it is getting us all to think about these
> things, but:
>
> 1)  The items SHOULD be stated as the misconception actually presented in
> the books accompanied by a statement of what's wrong.
>
> 2)  They should be referenced--else we have simple hearsay (which might
> start another Media feeding frenzy).
>
> 3)  We should then all feel free to either further attack OR defend the
> suggested 'misconception' (as some have already begun to do).
>
> Rick
R. Allen Shotwell
Chair, Science and Math
Ivy Tech State College
Terre Haute, IN USA