I think it's good for students, because students don't have to learn to revive boiled eggs with ideas, which sounds unreliable, but they can really study the internal structure of eggs, the incubation process of eggs and so on. Learning ideas is not good for students, nor is it good for students to find jobs. The work unit does not like such people. After all, the work unit likes people who do practical things, not people who study ideas. If the headmaster is interested in these illusory things, then she can study them in private instead of guiding the students to study together, so no one will care about her. But she wanted to take the students to study together, and even published this paper, so the nature of this matter changed.

The principal resigned, and the result of school rectification is what everyone wants to see. After all, everyone wants their children to receive a good education, and parents who send their children to this school don't want their children to learn this kind of thing. I don't know how the headmaster thinks his experiment is successful, and we don't know whether the so-called recycled eggs were brought from other places or cooked eggs changed. After all, raw eggs and cooked eggs look very similar, even if someone replaces them, we won't find them. Of course, I think there is nothing wrong with the students who are instructed to do experiments in this matter.

They just do things according to the headmaster's instructions, but these students' ideas should be corrected. Don't be addicted to learning ideas like the headmaster, which is definitely bad for them. I think it is much more scientific to study how to shorten and prolong the incubation process of eggs than to study the retrogradation of cooked eggs. I'm curious about what major this principal graduated from before. Moreover, the headmaster has refused to admit that her experiment is false, which is incredible. It's not that difficult to admit that the experiment is false, so maybe she can keep her position.

There must be something wrong with the magazine that published this paper. They should strictly review the published articles and should not let such articles confuse the public's vision. Authors of papers published in magazines can have their own feelings and ideas, but these should be based on science. If we abandon science to talk about ideas, this practice obviously does not conform to the concept of modern society. Moreover, such articles will mislead some people after publication, so magazines should really stop publishing and rectify.