You did not explain your purpose in spending 3 minutes to write a short and incorrect explanation of string theory. You described how you think in a school envi

You did not explain your purpose in spending 3 minutes to write a short and incorrect explanation of string theory. You described how you think in a school environment it is "OK to allude to the existence of string theory." I think it's reasonable to infer that you meant that explanation as an example of how a teacher might allude to string theory. Regarding snarky comments, my goal was to reply to the snark present in "I am a very bad person and I feel bad about it." Since I do not believe that you feel that way about yourself. If you actually do feel bad about it, then I sincerely retract the tone of my response, and apologize for my poor interpretation. Regarding "make science more interesting in school", that seems to be a shift in conversation. My comment was in regards to feeling "short-changed about your previous education and stupid about all the new stuff you have to absorb". In the context of making "science more interesting in school" you wrote: > Not talking about the existence of things when trying to introduce a field really stifles curiosity, by obscuring the fact that that there are many interesting avenues of inquiry that have yet to be explored. This is incomplete. Many of the things we have brought up, from DNA methylation to obscure reef geography, are well explored. Your comment imply that only the globally unexplored is interesting to students, which simply isn't true. The issue is that it is not reasonable for all teachers to know all of the details about these topics, and be able to summarize them, in such a way that no student will ever feel that they have been slighted for being misinformed about a detail. A great way to make science more interesting in school is to not cover all of the details and only hit the highlights. This coveys the main idea which is that these fields are comprehensible. If instead teachers spend much of their time qualifying their statements, then most students will be overwhelmed with information. "Will this be on the test?" "No." "So why do we need to know it?" "Because it's good for you." Call this the "Now eat your vegetables." or "It builds character" approach to teaching. I honestly do not believe this will make science more interesting.