This is a joke (and a great illustration), but I seriously am strongly opposed to people who advocate not teaching the Bohr model.https://twitter.com/InertialObservr/status/1222030996981215233 …
-
0:09Show this thread -
I outlined my reasons here:https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/the-bohr-model …
3 replies 8 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gravity_levity
Your philosophy of science game is deceptively simple seeming but beats half the BS I read Also I think you’re arguing for science ethnomethodology Cc
@literalbanana@Meaningness1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Anyone want to explain to me what "ethnomethodology" means?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
It means bureaucrats are usually wrong and whatever non-ministry-approved thing people are actually doing is usually less wrong
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
I’m not any sort of expert here, but my understanding is not quite this. Maybe you are thinking of the “good reasons for bad records” paper? The generalization of this is not that the official version is wrong but that it’s often different, & looking @ differences is illuminating
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Im just shitposting 3rd hand understandings from you and banana *slinks away quietly*
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Sorry, I didn’t mean to give you a hard time! It’s notoriously difficult to understand EM accurately. You are nearly on-target; one thing emphasized in EM studies of sciencing is the differences between what is done and the official story of what is done.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
Figuring out what scientists do, and why that works, seems critically important to me. And we genuinely don’t know!! Because nearly no one is looking to find out!! Some things are clear, and one is that scientists use multiple overlapping models—as you rightly foregrounded!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.