And, given the fact that having pressure-measurement manometer-arrays built into wings proves that the suction-side lift is greater than the pressure-side lift, and that this has been known since before The Great War..

some of us are inclined to consider the evidence to be valid.

Nope. Read the link, it's fascinating and complicated.

And the upside down flying is simply due to gliding mechanics, no?

Not sure what you mean by this. But planes still generate lift when flying upside down. Wings with a symmetrical curve can also generate lift. Flat wings with no curve at all can also generate lift.

Pressure differences are definitely involved. That's the only way air pushes against things, after all, so the fact that there is a lift force implies a pressure difference. However the cause of the pressure difference is rather complicated.

Me too :D

Same.

You're not wrong. Super-spicy foods are tasted twice.

This was a cool read, thanks for posting! That final bit about experiments on both the color and sound while chewing also affecting flavor is super interesting.

Newtonian mechanics are not wrong, just simplified. That is fine. What I’m saying is wrong is picking an example which specifically violates the exact parameters of the simplified model you’re teaching. It’s like if you’re teaching Newton’s laws and you decide to model a space probe traveling at 10% of light speed as your example. Just pick another example. For Punnet squares, you could talk about the bean plants, or blood types in people, or whatever you want that is pretty well abstracted as a single gene. Idk, for me I was never told in school that the blue/brown square was any simplified model of what was really going on. It was just, it’s a single gene, it’s brown and blue, that’s what’s up.

So this book actually goes into quite a lot of detail about why I think this is a problem. Page 110-112 talk about the original conclusion by adult scientists that blue and brown eyes work exactly in this simplified model. Pages 114-131 go into the incredible level of genetic and environmental and perceptual factors that actually determine eye color and what the actual spectrum is and why.

What I think is interesting is the pages between, where the author cites a bunch of scientists who had clearly modified their data to get the “right” answers (e.g. swearing confidently that two blue-eyed parents could never produce a brown eyed child, when the actual tested number was 12%). Just kind of clinging to the simplified model because it’s what you were told.

I don’t think we need to give the full hugely complicated model in a genetics class, although I actually think eye color would be a great way to introduce the idea that it’s a lot more complicated than just the Punnet squares in some light touching on it way. But to me, teaching the kids the page 110 explanation is a mistake because it’s teeing them up to commit the same kinds of mistakes from the following pages.