86 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

One of my pet hates is when a teacher, or other person of authority, makes a cataclysmic () error regarding basic science.

For example, saying that according to Newtons Third Law of Motion, the force exerted on you by the Earth's gravity is equally and oppositely counteracted by the force of the Earth's surface pushing up on you.
That simply isn't true.

To come clean, I'm considering working on a web series dedicated (among a few other things) to clearing up these misconceptions. If you can come up with any that you've encountered, or perhaps even believed, I'd be grateful for the leg up.

[Boggart]

One of my pet hates is when a teacher, or other person of authority, makes a cataclysmic () error regarding basic science.

For example, saying that according to Newtons Third Law of Motion, the force exerted on you by the Earth's gravity is equally and oppositely counteracted by the force of the Earth's surface pushing up on you.
That simply isn't true.

To come clean, I'm considering working on a web series dedicated (among a few other things) to clearing up these misconceptions. If you can come up with any that you've encountered, or perhaps even believed, I'd be grateful for the leg up.

sweet, I'd watch that. Especially if it's in British.

The only misconception is those old stories that aren't true; such as Isaac Newton and the apple and how he discovered gravity.

[Scot]

IF HUMANS EVOLVED FRUM MONKEES WHY ARE THEIR STILL MONKIES????

[Joanna]

I love when people say Ben Franklin "invented" electricity.

[ThreeDollarBill]

The Thomas Alva Edison and Nikola Tesla passage. How they trolled each other until death is ignored by most people. Especially the ones that say Alva Edison invented stuff that Tesla actually invented.

Edited by IceSandwich, 04 July 2011 - 02:13 PM.

[redlion]

IF HUMANS EVOLVED FRUM MONKEES WHY ARE THEIR STILL MONKIES????

This.

The Thomas Alva Edison and Nikola Tesla passage. How they trolled each other until death is ignored by most people. Especially the ones that say Alva Edison invented stuff that Tesla actually invented.

And this.

[Sweeney]

Evolution is too obvious

You're hardly trying, people

[redlion]

Evolution is too obvious

You're hardly trying, people

No, not the whole field, just the bit where a supposedly 'inferior' species still exists when humans became their direct competitors for food and living space.

[Sweeney]

No, not the whole field, just the bit where a supposedly 'inferior' species still exists when humans became their direct competitors for food and living space.

But there are widespread misconceptions about virtually every other aspect too. It's the proverbial can of annelids.

[Kat]

You ask that on a forum such as this one and expect different answers than these?.. Sweeney, you overestimate the people here.

[Jake]

Everyone thinks they know how to get the caramel inside a caramilk bar, can you please inform us on how to successfully do this?

[Tortenmann]

*cough* List of common misconceptions *cough*

[kittycat]

meh, I think it's okay to say that though, you learn about forces way before relativity as that is way more complex. In ~*~ basic ~*~ understand of ~*~ basic ~*~ science it might as well be true.

[Joanna]

Evolution is too obvious

You're hardly trying, people

I thought my misconception was good. *pouts*

[Sweeney]

meh, I think it's okay to say that though, you learn about forces way before relativity as that is way more complex. In ~*~ basic ~*~ understand of ~*~ basic ~*~ science it might as well be true.

No, it's not ok to say that.
Because it is wrong.

In basic science, or in theoretical astrophysics, it's still wrong. And teaching children things that are wrong is (generally considered) bad.

(And also, it has sweet fuck all to do with relativity ).

*cough* List of common misconceptions *cough*

There's a good one on there about the Seasons which had already occurred to me. I will browse the rest later.

Thanks.

[kittycat]

No, it's not ok to say that.
Because it is wrong.

In basic science, or in theoretical astrophysics, it's still wrong. And teaching children things that are wrong is (generally considered) bad.

It is beyond redundant to write with the exception of x when you're only learning basic concepts, how do you expect to teach anything that way, you start learning about Newton's laws in like what, grade 9? in your general science courses, is it really necessary to teach theoretical astrophysics to 15 year olds? Or should we leave out forces all together, or maybe we should not be taught physics all together because you know what, there are surely millions of things and exceptions we have yet to find out about physics that can possibly contradict everything we know about it!!! SIR ISAAC NEWTON FORBID, we teach something /wrong/!!!

All they do is like Fnet=ma haha, look that one is wrong too where is the relativity in that?

[Sweeney]

It is beyond redundant to write with the exception of x when you're only learning basic concepts, how do you expect to teach anything that way, you start learning about Newton's laws in like what, grade 9? in your general science courses, is it really necessary to teach theoretical astrophysics to 15 year olds? Or should we leave out forces all together, or maybe we should not be taught physics all together because you know what, there are surely millions of things and exceptions we have yet to find out about physics that can possibly contradict everything we know about it!!! SIR ISAAC NEWTON FORBID, we teach something /wrong/!!!

All they do is like Fnet=ma haha, look that one is wrong too where is the relativity in that?

I don't think you've actually understood what my objection is directed towards at all. Would you care to summarise what the problem is in my original post as you understand it, so that we can carry on this discussion like sensible people?

[kittycat]

I don't think you've actually understood what my objection is directed towards at all. Would you care to summarise what the problem is in my original post as you understand it, so that we can carry on this discussion like sensible people?

That it's a big deal when it's not. =(

[Sweeney]

That it's a big deal when it's not. =(

No, I mean, can you properly identify the problem with "saying that according to Newtons Third Law of Motion, the force exerted on you by the Earth's gravity is equally and oppositely counteracted by the force of the Earth's surface pushing up on you."

I'm not interested in your value judgement. Just your assessment of the accuracy of the example.

[Maloo]

"Nothing is lost, nothing is created. Everything is transformed" or "Nothing perishes and nothing is created"

People use to give these a philosophical meaning, when it truly means "in a chemical reaction nothing disappears and nothing is added".

Edited by Maloo, 04 July 2011 - 04:11 PM.

[Sweeney]

"Nothing is lost, nothing is created. Everything is transformed" or "Nothing perishes and nothing is created"

People use to give these a philosophical meaning, when it truly means "in a chemical reaction nothing disappears and nothing is added".

This brings up a deeper point about the nature of knowledge.
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is not an inviolable decree scribed into the foundations of nature itself, but a description that accounts for every applicable, verifiable observation ever made.

Were something to arise that contradicted it (QM *cough*) the Law would be revised, not the evidence ignored.

Many, many people do not seem to understand this.

However, even this basic epistemological reasoning is far above the kind of thing I'm really aiming for xD

[kittycat]

No, I mean, can you properly identify the problem with "saying that according to Newtons Third Law of Motion, the force exerted on you by the Earth's gravity is equally and oppositely counteracted by the force of the Earth's surface pushing up on you."

I'm not interested in your value judgement. Just your assessment of the accuracy of the example.

So you're asking me to explain why newton's third law is incorrect? I'm not a physicist and I definitely do not know tonnes of relativistic physics, do you expect me to? That's completely irrelevant response but cool, it's not a true statement because in some cases the momentum of an object is not conserved after applying an advanced understanding of physics completely redundant to a for example, 9th grader beginning to learn about physics. Ta-da?

How would you like to rewrite the laws in layman's terms? Please do.

[Sweeney]

So you're asking me to explain why newton's third law is incorrect? I'm not a physicist and I definitely do not know tonnes of relativistic physics, do you expect me to? That's completely irrelevant response but cool, it's not a true statement because in some cases the momentum of an object is not conserved after applying an advanced understanding of physics completely redundant to a for example, 9th grader beginning to learn about physics. Ta-da?

No.

It's not a correct application of Newton's Third Law. That is the problem.
Now I have provided you with that little nudge in the right direction, do you think perhaps you could google yourself an explanation as to why?
Or would you like me to spoon-feed you that, too?

Let me provide you with another clue. You can get off the relativity bus, because, as I said several posts ago, Einstein's remarkable improvements on Newton's work have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Frankly, I'm dubious about your ability to actually participate in this conversation.

[Maloo]

This brings up a deeper point about the nature of knowledge.
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is not an inviolable decree scribed into the foundations of nature itself, but a description that accounts for every applicable, verifiable observation ever made.

Were something to arise that contradicted it (QM *cough*) the Law would be revised, not the evidence ignored.

Many, many people do not seem to understand this.

However, even this basic epistemological reasoning is far above the kind of thing I'm really aiming for xD

Hm..I'll try to think about some other ones, then..
And by the way, do you like reading Sweeney?
Because if you do, I think you'd be really interested in a book called The Solitaire Mystery

[Sweeney]

Hm..I'll try to think about some other ones, then..
And by the way, do you like reading Sweeney?
Because if you do, I think you'd be really interested in a book called The Solitaire Mystery

I do indeed like to read. At the moment my Kindle is stuffed full of textbooks and the like for my course next year.
I shall google this mystery, though. Know the author?