Your comments are correct for someone familiar with the subject matter and
understands the subtleties.
For someone who is essentially a foreigner to the subject, stating things
like this in precisely correct fashion is guaranteed to lose that person.
There is pedagogical value in analogs, even if the analogy is only
approximate. There is value in gaining acceptance to a general idea, even
if it is not precisely the one to be eventually honed, if it breaks a basic
misconception. That is, it is beneficial to trade off a large misconception
in return for a smaller one, if going after precisely correct answers only
serves to confuse.
Here’s the thing. When I respond to Ed, I’m talking *to Ed*. I’m not aiming
my response sideways at some other audience that’s NOT Ed, who might
benefit from a more elaborate or technically correct answer. And in some
cases, I may not be even trying to *explain* things to Ed; instead, I might
be casting a light on his motivations or hidden reasons that are
obstructing his ability to understand things.
This is why I asked you recently WHY you respond to Ed; specifically, with
WHAT GAIN to be obtained BY WHOM? If you have a side audience in mind and
are giving up saying anything that would be of possible gain to Ed, then
just say so and explain for whom you hope your response produces some
positive impact. You’ve implied that those who teach physics might benefit
from it, but you’ve not said that when you respond to Ed, you’re really
replying to physics instructors about how to teach physics. I’m not sure,
you’d have to tell me.
On this group, the MOTIVATIONS of the posters are AT LEAST as important as
their knowledge of the content. Seto, for example, is not at all interested
in science. He’s interested in being PERCEIVED as an important scientist,
even if only to nonscientists. That’s a scam, of course, but that’s his
motivations. Any response to him that is about science content is useless,
except insofar as it demonstrates that he is only pretending. That’s why I
only talk to him about things he can look up in the one textbook he has, or
simple observations and experiments he didn’t know he could do.
Ed is motivated by faith in his instincts, and his COMPLETE WILLINGNESS to
be the only one following his nose in a particular direction. So I have a
completely different aim with Ed when I talk *io Ed*. I’m not talking to
anyone else when I respond to Ed.