nobility amy they tried to change the name to "inert gas" the original conception had all the (main group) elements tending towards nobility, and then they decided no. all you elements must want to be inert! man-oh-man. the peasants are not going to take that one. teaches chemistry to non-chemists. 031021 ... student atoms don't desire or aspire -- yes, it's a metaphor, but it obscures the true laws of physics... it's like using baby-talk to speak to students who are smart enough to know better (even if we are nonchemists!) furthermore, assuming that all peasants strive to nobility is classist. (i, for one, am damn proud to be a simple peasant!) 031022 ... amy i don't believe you can remove the metaphors of physics. electrostatic attraction, for instance, is attraction of opposites all the same. or, maybe it's just that the laws of physics are found in human nature! i find the real chemist's way of describing things alienating, and the metaphors interesting. and then it's really interesting when you relate human beings to the matter of which they are composed, or the matter of which human beings composed to the human's creative acts of conceptualizing it. if you really wanted the scientist's view you'd listen to your university professors. and i try to explain to my students the best i can, however, i can't help, for instance, the name "noble gases" or "inert gases". mostly, i see it as historical. i thought a lot of peasants didn't want to be peasants at one point, but maybe that's not true... 031023 ... student from my experience the metaphors make teaching/learning easier. ...because they are simplifications -- cliches, essentially. it's not a matter of creativity, but of taking shortcuts, on the part of both student and teacher. for example, to say "opposites attract" wrt to people is so reductionist -- good for pop songs and nursery rhymes and people escaping the complexities of reality, but not critical thinking. it's the same for childish metaphors in science. by representing atoms/cells/molecules/proteins as having personalities, you can get your students to choose the right answer on the test, but will limit them from thinking about the true forces and energies involved. ...i suppose it depends on where your goals lie. all metaphors are limited in scope, once you open your mind to extensions beyond the textbook. i think it's unfair to say that university professors are alienating (another cliche!) -- i've had so many fabulous ones. the only upsetting ones are those who think more of themselves (how they appear, how they sound, whether they are brilliant or creative enough) than their students... 031026 ... amy our differences lie in the subject matter. i'm not teaching real chemistry -- i'm describing chemistry to people who only need one quarter's worth to get where they want to go. therefore, it behooves me not to speak in the abstractions of physics. my interests lie in how to *relate* chemistry to working people's futures. as a student of real science, you wouldn't want to take my class. i also don't mean to speak in cliches -- opposites attract is a psychological reality in that our minds tend to think in duality. if you read carefully, it is the "chemist's way of describing things" that i was concerned with -- not the university professors themselves. i am referring to the very standardized knowledge presented by textbooks, ACS, and GRE exams. it is merely my intuition (and emotional) reaction that alienates me from it, which leads to me to skepticism, but not necessarily a wholesale discounting. also interesting (well, to me), was an emotional reaction that i had to a paradigm used in my research that eventually led me to quit it, since i was too chickenshit to think outside of the box.... not everybody has the time (or logical, abstract thinking skills) to study physics or chemistry or biology in the fashion of the university. 031027 ... student sorry to make you defensive -- i was trying to build a dialogue, but it's crumbled under your onslaught of your dismissive acronyms. so: i wonder if you think your students would be happy to know you don't think they're up to learning what you call "real" chemistry, that you instead distinguish for them a "working people's" variety. do they really want to be limited to the skills that you feel will "get them through" real life, through the exams to pass the semester? from my experience, everyone wants to be challenged. if they knew you were simplifying things because you don't think they need very much "real chemistry" where they are headed, I bet they'd feel cheated. you say they are limited, in part, by their thinking skills. that's terrible, and you're right in saying I wouldn't want to take your class. you peg me with certainty as a university student of "real science" -- which i'm not. i'm an educator who has studied some science but is much more interested in creative expression than white man's scantron-oriented textbooks. neither am i a fan of university-style education. (another assumption.) conceptions of physics are not abstractions, unless they are taught in a fuzzy, uncertain way (which is possible.) but even exercises in abstractions are good for the brain (even working people's brains). i suppose you wouldn't encourage your students to take classes in subjects that they can't manipulate with their bare hands, like wood shop, cosmetology, or textile design. your tone indicates that my opinions couldn't possibly be as informed as yours. which is funny, considering you don't know anything beyond this tiny abstraction: STUDENT. 031027 ... amy when attacked, get defensive. that's what my father always used to say. really, i don't mind. i'm glad you're an educator, it decreases my general isolation. (although, i wouldn't say that i wear my official teacher hat, here at blather.) i teach a range of students... some can't do algebra and some are coming back to school eager to learn everything they didn't get a chance to the first time around. since it's a survey class, we often come up against subjects that i can't adequately explain, given their knowledge and ability to understand at this level. yesterday this happened when an curious student asked a question that fed off of some stuff we we learning. so i answered, with some higher level material, and the response of the class was, "do have to know this for the test?" and then, i have to say no, but i can't quite remind them that it's good to want to learn everything they can. you're also running into the black hole of my education, which is the fact that i spent 6+ years learning chemistry, mainly motivated out of curiousity, and now that i don't use most of it, i remember none of it. it was like i spent so much time learning something that had no meaning to the rest of my life. maybe i was just too young to know better, and maybe it was abstract thinking that i was actually learning. i dunno, but i feel like i've been exposed to "real" chemistry and it just didn't take hold, for whatever reason. like, for instance, the "octet rule", which started this blathe. i don't remember ever being taught why it exists, on the level of fundamental principles. maybe i was, and i just didn't get it. everywhere you look, the octet rule is described as "achieving" or "gaining" (or, more suggestively, "wanting") a noble gas configuration. i do tend to assume that if i didn't get it, my one-quarter-only, first-time students won't either. in actuality, the seemingly non-real chemistry i teach came to me like a talent in high school, and if anything i have a problem bringing it down to my students' level. i have to learn, through experience, what my students need to know, and less so what i was taught as a chemistry major. that has been my philosophy, and i have a long way to go with it. 031028 what's it to you? who go blather from