@misc{hubisz_2006, title={Catholic physics: Jesuit natural philosophy in early modern Germany.}, volume={8}, number={4}, journal={Physics in Perspective}, author={Hubisz, J. L.}, year={2006}, pages={477–478} }
 @misc{hubisz_2004, title={Experiments trump precise definitions for teaching science to middle-school students - Reply}, volume={57}, ISSN={["0031-9228"]}, DOI={10.1063/1.4797164}, abstractNote={Hubisz replies: “Acceleration” is a very difficult concept. It is a second-order effect: a rate of change with respect to time of a rate of change with respect to time. It may well be that it is too much for middle-school students, but, regardless, it is mentioned in most physical sciences texts; the definition should be correct, even if the only objective is to have the students memorize something.Galileo reviewed previous attempts at describing accelerated motion, rejected them, and considered both the rate of change of speed (not velocity) with respect to distance and the rate of change of speed with respect to time. 1 1. Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, H. Crew and A. de Salvio, trans., Northwestern U. Press, Evanston, Ill., and McGraw-Hill, New York (1963), Third Day. He rejected the former, for reasons that were not too clear, but accepted the latter on the guess that it fit his work on freely falling bodies. This leap of Galileo’s is very sophisticated and certainly not “dictated by logic.” Logic can only assure us that the process is correct; it says nothing about the physics that Galileo insisted his definition satisfy.What can we do? Follow Galileo. Forget putting the definition in the textbooks. Have the students carry out experiments. Encourage them to investigate the phenomenon first before we throw definitions at them. They will learn that velocity is not always constant, that the problem is not trivial, and that they have a lot more to learn, perhaps in high school, maybe in college.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, H. Crew and A. de Salvio, trans., Northwestern U. Press, Evanston, Ill., and McGraw-Hill, New York (1963), Third Day. Google Scholar© 2004 American Institute of Physics.}, number={1}, journal={PHYSICS TODAY}, author={Hubisz, J}, year={2004}, month={Jan}, pages={13–14} }
 @article{hubisz_2003, title={Middle-school texts don't make the grade}, volume={56}, ISSN={["1945-0699"]}, DOI={10.1063/1.1583534}, abstractNote={Thousands of teachers are saddled with error-filled physical science textbooks that fail to present what science is all about. Physicists deserve some of the blame.}, number={5}, journal={PHYSICS TODAY}, author={Hubisz, J}, year={2003}, month={May}, pages={50–54} }
 @misc{hubisz_2003, title={More than texts need reform in middle schools - Reply}, volume={56}, ISSN={["0031-9228"]}, DOI={10.1063/1.4797146}, abstractNote={Hubisz replies: I am quite pleased with the response to my article on middle-school texts. The large number of letters both supports my message and makes it clear that many others are concerned about the problem and are attempting to do something about it.Martha Schwartz asks if I have looked for signs of change in the textbook selection process. Admittedly I am most concerned about the end product—the adopted texts. But because of the publicity that my work on the textbook problem has received through print, radio, and television, I have responded to hundreds of requests (from a governor, several state senators, and a host of science curriculum supervisors and teachers) for my suggestions on a procedure for selecting science textbooks. Their replies suggest that changes are being attempted. After a radio interview in California, I received a blizzard of horror stories about the selection process. Schwartz’s description of the process is similar to my proposal, except that many excellent texts never get to the first stage. My article at http://www.johnlocke.org/policy_reports/2003012933.html describes why many publishers do not even bother to submit their texts. Richard Feynman once served in California on a textbook selection committee that graded a blank mathematics book higher than the two other books in the series. 1 1. R. Leighton, in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character, E. Hutchings, ed., W. W. Norton, New York, 1989. That incident suggests that time and manpower can overwhelm even the most conscientious and expert reviewers. Schwartz’s reference 2 contains a discussion of how that can happen.Kimball Milton is correct to point out that we have to be precise, but we are not likely to change the historically sanctioned language. I have suggested that texts clarify the vocabulary and now suggest that when referring to such words used inappropriately, we include them in quotes as our grammar dictates.Richard Factor’s letter reminded me of the first time I heard “antipode” spoken aloud. I was glad that I had never needed to use it in conversation. Pronunciation guides for specialized vocabulary are generally a good idea, but box 1 of my article referred to standard English/American words. But, then, how do you pronounce “laboratory” and “apparatus”?I thank Norman R. Dotti and Borut Gogala for two practical examples of the importance of precision to add to my collection. I have just finished reading an informative forensic science book (they are great for demonstrating the scientific approach to solving problems). The book informed me that “7,000 volts of electricity jumped into the body of Theodore ‘Ted’ Bundy,” that one could “send 50,000 volts of electricity for 8 seconds into the wearer [of a shock belt used to control difficult prisoners],” and that “the current generated… could be detected and measured in millivolts.” Middle-school texts frequently confuse current and voltage.Jay Pasachoff and I have discussed these problems in e-mail exchanges. He would admit that what a writer produces for textbook publishers is out of the author’s hands once submitted, and the manuscripts do get edited to “simplify the science” and “adjust” the readability, as one editor told me. The original report did speak of some excellent material in one of the reviewed texts, but only because it was removed in the next edition. I am concerned that “emphasizing the good parts” as Pasachoff suggests may give readers the idea that the whole book is being recommended. There certainly are good parts, but the large number of people involved in developing these books militates against such a conclusion. Although my Web site http://www.science-house.org/ middle-school reports errors in textbooks, its main purpose is to point out good resources for the middle-school classroom and for teacher enrichment.Many years ago, I visited one of my son’s classes. After the students successfully identified biologists and chemists and were asked which scientists studied the stars, they answered in unison, “astrologers.” After class, I pointed out that they were astronomers and the teacher asked, “Aren’t they the same?” Perhaps now her next 20 years of students will not be led astray. We need more physicists to visit more classrooms and to attend more school board meetings and to volunteer to review new text offerings. Together we can accomplish much.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. Leighton, in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character, E. Hutchings, ed., W. W. Norton, New York, 1989. Google Scholar© 2003 American Institute of Physics.}, number={9}, journal={PHYSICS TODAY}, author={Hubisz, J}, year={2003}, month={Sep}, pages={15–16} }
 @misc{hubisz_1998, title={Answer to question #54. Chapter summaries: Blessing or curse?}, volume={66}, ISSN={["0002-9505"]}, DOI={10.1119/1.18948}, abstractNote={First Page}, number={8}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS}, author={Hubisz, JL}, year={1998}, month={Aug}, pages={661–661} }