“I would never teach the Bohr model!” he exclaimed. “I don't believe in teaching things that are just wrong.” He was a respected teacher, and I knew I should listen to what he had to say, but in the end I wasn't convinced that his view was right for me and my classes.
In fact, I do believe in teaching things that are “just wrong”—selectively. For example, I like my introductory physicsstudents to learn the planetary model of Hydrogen, and not only so that we can discuss why it is deficient. It's a great opportunity to “spiral back”1 to Newton's second law, circular motion, conservation of energy, and the origin of electromagnetic radiation—and it does get the ionization energy right if you assume an empirically determined radius for the atom! In addition, knowing specifically when,why, and how a model is wrong is one of the hallmarks that distinguishes science from other endeavors. Furthermore, one might argue that there really are no perfect models (models that successfully incorporate gravitational and quantum effects in one philosophically cohesive whole, for example), so every model is “just wrong” in some sense. Finally, even if there was a “perfect” model of the atom to teach, it does not follow that good pedagogy involves teaching it. Let me explain.