
Science Misconceptions in Textbooks and Popular culture - acqq
http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon.html
======
mechanical_fish
A valuable spare-time student exercise that will benefit the world: Rewrite
these pages, perhaps every single one, and turn down the vitriol by about
fifty percent.

I base this suggestion on a sample I visited:

<http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#frkel>

Let me break down this page: A TITLE IN ANGRY ALL CAPS. A paragraph stating
the misconception. Three paragraphs of ranting about the badness of the
misconception without actually explaining what is bad about it. A list of sub-
misconceptions, again without explanation, but with a helpful WRONG next to
each one, in case you needed more shouting. Then another paragraph of throat-
clearing. Then, finally, some explanation.

Everyone gets enraged by idiots at one time or another. But capturing that
rage in print is rarely productive. Rage tends to be repetitive and soon
becomes grating. Fortunately, there is good stuff here; it just needs editing
and rewriting, possibly over a nice drink in a relaxing place.

~~~
Jun8
True, the page turned me off so much that I had the patience to look at only
one "misconception": Why is the sky blue? What the site states is not that the
textbooks are wrong but they could explain it in simpler terms. Well, then,
misconception is too strong a word for that. And I think the simpler
explanation had holes in it, too, e.g. "air is made up of blue particles,
etc."

~~~
acqq
I don't see the problem there. The author writes first clearly: "This one
isn't purely a textbook error. Still, it involves misconceptions on the part
of authors." He wants to point that it's not a misconception to explain that
the sky is blue because of "wavelengths of light, Tyndall effect, and Rayleigh
scattering" the misconception (in the approach to the presentation, not in the
facts) is to explain only that single effect on that level and not mention
that all the materials with which we are surrounded also have own colors
because of the similar behaviors of atomic particles. That is a valid and
important insight. And the misconception (again in the presentation, note
again that he writes about school books) is not to mention that the air
actually always has colors only that we don't register them because a lot of
it is needed. I think it's good to point to all this.

------
Cushman
In a similar vein, I find this Wikipedia article persistently fascinating:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions>

~~~
acqq
I knew that one and I still find the Beaty's texts much clearer than the
relevant Wikipedia articles. Some time ago I've read in Wikipedia about what
lifts the airplane. Then I've read his text. His one is significantly clearer.

------
JoeAltmaier
<http://www.xkcd.com/803>

------
stretchwithme
Somebody should make a tool that people can point to crappy websites and
reformat them into something pleasant to read.

Readability helps a little bit:

    
    
      http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

~~~
acqq
I've just checked his markup: AFAIK he doesn't use anything bad (never
specifies Comics Sans or whatever). If you saw problems try checking the
defaults of your browser, I have a slight impression you haven't adjusted
these. You should be able to configure the default font etc. and even styles
in most of the browsers.

~~~
stretchwithme
Perhaps it just looks crappy on Chrome. I haven't touched the defaults.

~~~
acqq
Well then it's your problem! Allow me to claim that if it looks bad to you
it's because you were lazy. The possibility of changing the defaults in the
browsers is really there because tastes are different. All the pages without
"styles" allow you to see them _better_ than the others where the style is
forced on you, once you adjust the default style. You set that only once for
all such pages you're going to see. It's worth, much more than applying
something every time you come to some such page which is what your suggestion
was.

~~~
stretchwithme
you're right. Its all the reader's fault.

Its not like any other media is expected to accomodate perception. They
usually just give a short lecture to the viewer, right?

yes, its my fault for not squinting correctly.

~~~
acqq
You started with this:

> Somebody should make a tool that people can point to crappy websites and
> reformat them into something pleasant to read.

As already mentioned: there is already a tool and you need to use it _only
once_ \-- it's the configuration of defaults of your browser.

~~~
stretchwithme
if you say so. some day all schools will teach us exactly how so that authors
needn't be bothered

~~~
acqq
How can anybody know your personal preferences? I also can't teach you how you
should set them as I don't use the same browser as you. Try to remember: not
everybody uses everything you do.

I don't understand what your problem is, apart from not knowing to use your
browser. You've asked for a tool, you've received the answer -- it already
exists, you're not accepting it again and again.

------
jipumarino
I wish the site was just a little easier to navigate…

~~~
zsouthboy
It certainly doesn't help the cause to come off as a crazy timecube looking
website.

~~~
Semiapies
Try looking at Timecube again. Seriously.

Unstyled HTML is nothing like that mess.

------
fady
I like the site, just needs some CSS magic. The readability/usability is ok.

~~~
wbeaty
Ah, you hit on my central philosophy: all content, no esthetics. Whenever I
have free time, I add more content (hand-written in HTML, via a telnet
terminal from wherever I happen to be.) See the FAQ:

This site looks like something from 1994!!!!!!
<http://amasci.com/faq.html#1994>

NEVER TRY TO PLEASE EVERYONE! YOUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO BECOME THE HATED ENEMY OF
CERTAIN KINDS OF PEOPLE. :)

