At this point, of course, you've moved the goalposts to the thermal side of the field. Are we talking about 'teaching the controversy' of athermal effects, or

At this point, of course, you've moved the goalposts to the thermal side of the field. Are we talking about 'teaching the controversy' of athermal effects, or of thermal ones? ... Radiative, conductive, and dielectric heating can all warm up the right substance. But I cannot agree that "absolutely nothing [different] happens" since their mechanisms are quite distinct. Please tell me why this is incorrect. The mechanisms are not the least bit distinct at the molecular level. In each of these cases, heating occurs by simple friction. It comes down to the difference between a chemical change and a physical change. Microwaving the water, shining a light on it, or cooking it on a stove burner will cause physical changes. Ionizing radiation causes chemical changes. The distinction between these two types of effects isn't just important, it's the only one that matters.