But, describing the process in terms of the air is merely a simplification to make it easier for the student to understand. How can you object to simplifications?
I don t object to simplifications. However, you must make a distinction between something which has been made simple (stripped to its essence), and something which has been made simplistic (stripped of its essence). The explanation which attributes the formation of clouds to the inability of the air to hold as much water vapor at lower temperatures is not a simplification, it is categorically wrong! It bears no more correspondence to the behavior of nature than if I were to explain the process as one in which the water molecules were held in the arms of angels who, upon being chilled, begin to shiver and drop them. Just because the former explanation has the patina of science (rather than religion) does not make it correct. I am not in favor of telling lies to students, nor will I accept the justification that lies are acceptable if they seem easier to grasp than the truth. One is not obliged to provide an explanation (you could merely state what happens rather than why it happens), bu
Related Questions
- My users don understand the OpenID technology and I don think they should understand it. How can I make the OpenID sign in process easier for my users?
- Would standardization and simplification of the questions asked by the payer make the claim adjudication process easier?
- I see the terms "upflow", downflow", and "horizontal" used when describing furnaces and air handlers. What does this mean?
