That is 9 pages, really only 6 pages of text, easy to read,
downloadable free for all. The authors are good at following
their own advice to keep it simple. They make a number of
excellent points. A fair bit of it is non-constructive,
explaining why certain approaches are likely /not/ to work,
but they also have some good constructive suggestions.
It has been summarized in the press in various places.
One constructive suggestion that is implicit in what C&L are
saying is that the best way to reduce the number of myths
is to avoid falling prey to the misconception in the first place.
To say it in even more constructive terms: Get the right idea
out there /first/. If there is to be any discussion of bad
ideas, that should come after the student has a solid grasp
of the correct ideas.
It is 100% OK for professionals to discuss misconceptions in
a forum such as this, but there are tremendous inherent risks
in mentioning misconceptions in front of naïve students. This
has direct implications for those who try to teach using the
"historical" approach. Beware that a lot of historical ideas
turned out to be not right.
This makes contact with the discussion of "half" of a vortex
ring. The fact is, there is no such thing as half a vortex
ring. A vortex line cannot come to an end, not within the
material or even at the boundary. The fact that you cannot
/see/ the continuation of the vortex line does not change the
laws of physics.
If you show the "half vortex" video to students, they will form
a mental model of vortex lines ending abruptly at the boundary,
and there will be hell to pay getting them to unlearn it.
"But I saw it with my own eyes."
I say whatever you saw is what it is, but the description in
terms of a half-vortex is not correct.
Perhaps most importantly, there is one thing that C&L left out
of their analysis, and that is /humor/.
"One belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
-- H.L. Mencken
====
Another important point that C&L left out is that in a debate,
the goal is to persuade the /audience/. Do not bother trying
to convince the opposing debate squad; they are never going to
concede.
This can take many forms. In some cases if the debate is
handled badly, it can produce a backfire effect of the type
C&L describe. For example, in this forum, debating a troll
gives him an aura of legitimacy he does not deserve. Very
often it is better to let the troll have the last word, and
just move on to better things.