Revising a well-received textbook offers challenges I had not expected as a co-author. For one, our Editor explained that we should not dramatically change the book because this is to be a 2nd edition, not a new book. Certainly, we don't want to be those kinds of authors who simply put a new cover on a rapidly aging manuscript. While I had hoped revising would allow us to bring some material up to date, this is turning into a mixed bag.
Early on, I had imagined we would omit the occasional blurbs about the old National Standards and replace those with the new ones. That would certainly have been a timely move -- except that to make this text ready for fall adoptions, it must be well into production long before the new national material is released. A much better sequence would have allowed us to drop the new stuff in and put us ahead of all our competitors which would have been an impressive accomplishment for students and professors this fall. Alas, the exact opposite will occur. Ours will be the last science methods text to ever be published under the old regime and the furthest from current as can be imagined.
Fortuitously, there are unexpected gems that arrive at just the right moment. For example, a recent article in Science News indicated some tiny adjustments in atomic weights as well as the formal naming of the latest element: Copernicium. How glorious it is to show the tentativeness of science via this example.
I especially like this because the Periodic Tables in chemistry classrooms always seem so permanent — and these stories shows the plasticity of scientific knowledge. And a physics example of tentativeness just came to my attention this morning. Turns out there is now a 13th sign in the zodiac that has been named Ophiuchus. Coincidentally (perhaps) my co-author just forwarded to me the revised commentary to be embedded in the Nature of Science chapter. Juxtaposing his fine contribution with this new constellation framework could only be better if I could show how this contributor's sign changed with the new arrangements. At best, I'll have to editorialize by commenting how the tentativeness of science has even forced me to change from a Cancer to a Gemini. This nicely suits my fascination with the 1960s space program. So while we'll miss the boat with the new national science frameworks, we'll still be able to incorporate enough contemporary science tidbits to show how up-to-date the second edition is even in something as "unchanging" as astronomy.
Fortuitously, there are unexpected gems that arrive at just the right moment. For example, a recent article in Science News indicated some tiny adjustments in atomic weights as well as the formal naming of the latest element: Copernicium. How glorious it is to show the tentativeness of science via this example.
I especially like this because the Periodic Tables in chemistry classrooms always seem so permanent — and these stories shows the plasticity of scientific knowledge. And a physics example of tentativeness just came to my attention this morning. Turns out there is now a 13th sign in the zodiac that has been named Ophiuchus. Coincidentally (perhaps) my co-author just forwarded to me the revised commentary to be embedded in the Nature of Science chapter. Juxtaposing his fine contribution with this new constellation framework could only be better if I could show how this contributor's sign changed with the new arrangements. At best, I'll have to editorialize by commenting how the tentativeness of science has even forced me to change from a Cancer to a Gemini. This nicely suits my fascination with the 1960s space program. So while we'll miss the boat with the new national science frameworks, we'll still be able to incorporate enough contemporary science tidbits to show how up-to-date the second edition is even in something as "unchanging" as astronomy. 