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 -
Replying to @vgr @gravity_levity and
It also struck me reading your thing why I find some approaches to science popularization just... bad. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson style. They mystify the thought processes and fetishize the latest version of the “facts”. Shock-and-awe scientism. It might as well be religion.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @vgr @gravity_levity and
Your style is to clarify the methods even if it doesn’t get you to the leading edge of facts. Thus is superior. The edge can shift/backslide, but methods of thought, like “model classically and quantize” create patterns of thought that I suspect are the actual content of science.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
If you did Cosmos v 3.0, I can see you building up stacks of methods each episode using bathtub type ideas that get you to say a basic appreciation of something esoteric like “black hole surface information” where Tyson would present a parade of Hubble pictures signifying nothing
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.