Just to agree with David. I wrote a letter to the editor some years ago complaining about a ‘simplified’ definition of what science is:
I read with some interest the AAPT statement on the definition of science in a recent issue of the American Journal of Physics.1 The statement incorporates a key point of the definition of science given by the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, who stated something along the lines that the business of science is to disprove theories, not to prove them. I think the published statements are fine as far as they go but we should be aware that there are some crucial underlying questions which are not considered in that definition.
1 A great deal of creativity goes into deciding exactly what to observe, what data to gather. Asking the right questions is a necessary part of science and is not ad- dressed in the definition given. Surely a lifetime spent gathering data and inventing and disproving theories about umbrellas is not science but the definition as written would not necessarily rule that or similar undertakings out.2
2 This creativity in approach is precisely why we need to address gender and ethnic diversity questions in physics. We need to start with as many different view- points and ideas as possible. This involves speculation, hunches, guesses, dreams, possibly hallucinations, none of which appears in any definitions of science that I know of. From there we go on to test, eliminate wrong ideas, etc., but the creative part is critical to the success of the project. This point is frequently overlooked in discussions about the nature of the scientific enterprise.
3 Many scientists make no observations, collect no data. Einstein did no significant experimental work at all that I am aware of. Science requires a community of scientists; no one scientist does it all. Science is a social project. This is, of course, not the same thing as saying scientific knowledge is no better than knowledge from other human endeavors, a claim made by some social scientists recently. There are problems here, too. How does one get to be a part of this social group? Who is a member of this association? When the normal credentialing process of becoming a physicist is analyzed it is nearly indistinguishable from those required for joining many religious groups.
4 Historically it is seldom the case that scientists abandon a theory based only on contrary evidence. Usually a better theory has to be found before an old theory is considered to be overturned. In the meantime the old theory is patched together with the knowledge that it isn’t really working all that well. Wrong theories can also often be useful because they suggest new things to try, new approaches, new questions. We don’t always discard wrong theories out- right, often we use them as stepping stones to better theories. Occasionally we actually use wrong theories even though we know and understand better theories because the wrong one is simpler and works well enough for the project at hand.
5 How much testing should be done on a theory? Are we ever ‘‘finished’’ testing a theory? If so, how do we know enough testing has been done? Or do we test forever in which case there are no theories that are truly accepted? What scientists seem to do is test ideas in bundles. We assume x, y, and z are true in order to test theory w. We assume our knowledge of electricity and magnetism is sufficient to expect that voltmeters work well enough to measure properties of electrons in a collider, for example . We may eventually test x while assuming y, z, and r are true but for testing w we act as if x is true for the time being.
6 Along the same lines, an important missing element in the definition is that it is perfectly rational and acceptable to ‘‘believe’’ or accept as provisionally true, the best or most useful theory available. If we understand the history of science we can’t help but think that better theories will emerge. Does that mean we should abandon what we are using now, even before it is eventually superseded? I don’t think so.
The statement ‘‘I know science when I see it’’ serves most working scientists well enough. The statement published in the August, 1999 issue of AJP does significantly better. When we try to create even more refined definitions of science we may wish to consult philosophers of science, from whom we can learn a lot and who have already spent considerable time thinking about most of the problems stated above . I recommend to the readers of the AJP the collection of essays Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Klemke, Hollinger, Rudge, and Kline, which formed the foundation in my own thinking for many of the ideas expressed above.
1‘‘What is Science?,’’ Am. J. Phys. 67, 659 1999 .
2 E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger, D. W. Rudge, and A. D. Kline eds. , Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science Prometheus, Am- herst, NY, 1998 , 3rd edition, p. 99.
Kyle Forinash
Natural Science Division Indiana University Southeast 4201 Grant Line Road New Albany, Indiana 47150-6405 17 August 1999
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
phys-l-request@mail.phys-l.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
phys-l-owner@mail.phys-l.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: electricity?in the atmosphere (David Marx)
2. Re: electricity?in the atmosphere (Ken Caviness)
3. Re: electricity?in the atmosphere (David Marx)
4. Re: electricity?in the atmosphere (John Denker)
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:50:45 -0600
From: "David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] electricity?in the atmosphere
Message-ID:
<6c0c2397058f6c58f82f7fd698c778d9.squirrel@webmail.phy.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Thanks, John, for highlighting the NOVA episode, At the Edge of Space. To me
it is one of their best in showing how scientists actually do science. None
of this phony "scientific method" stuff. I have used the full episode when I
taught our lowest level general education physics class. I have students
watch it outside of class and write a short analysis (not a summary) and
answer a set of questions about it.
My daughter is taking an intro geology course and they require the students to
know the phony scientific method: hypothesis-theory-law. I can't believe this
stuff is still taught at the university level.
On Sat, February 10, 2018 9:35 am, John Denker via Phys-l wrote:
On 02/09/2018 06:47 PM, Derek McKenzie wrote:
I particularly appreciate the number estimates, as well as the idea of
modeling the phenomenon as a spherical capacitor.
For those who want to know more about the model.....
*) The books by Uman are useful but even the latest "revised"
edition is 50 years out of date. I haven't seen the 700-page tome by Rakov and
Uman but I gather it is more up-to-date.
*) Sprites in the upper atmosphere were predicted in 1921
by C.T.R. Wilson but not observed until 1989, and are still a hot topic of
research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSCwiQWzMa0
That NOVA episode gives a realistic portrayal of scientists
doing their job. In particular, ask your students how they would feel if they
spent years putting together a team and building equipment, then when the
conditions are right staying up all night and spending an additional
$100,000.00 to carry
out the mission, and coming back with ... nothing! If you don't know what that
feels like, you don't know what it's like to be a scientist.
Most remarkably, NOVA did not leave out the painful part of
the story.
A few nights later, good conditions come around again, so
they carry out the mission again, and come back with ... data. Gorgeous, highly
informative data.
Additional points to tell students:
-- Not all physics was done in the 1600s. There are still
interesting unanswered questions. -- Physics is mostly a team sport; you don't
have to be a lone genius like Galileo or Newton or Einstein to make a
contribution. -- A lot of it requires building fancy instruments and
exploiting modern technology. -- OTOH it usually doesn't require CERN-sized
teams or CERN-sized instruments. Sometimes a Gulfstream-V full
of fancy cameras will do nicely. -- There is joy at the end of the rainbow, but
you have to tolerate a lot of risk and pain before you get there. This requires
strength of character. Technical skill is not enough. -- It must be emphasized
that exploring blind alleys is part of the cost of obtaining information. A
mission that comes back with no data of the desired kind is not a mistake and
not a waste. Scientists take calculated risks, carefully balancing risk
versus reward. Don't take any more risk than necessary, or any less. https://www.av8n.com/physics/research-maze.htm
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:45:13 +0000
From: Ken Caviness <caviness@southern.edu>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] electricity?in the atmosphere
Message-ID:
<1C768AAC7A8AA3439C887816FF519A40474FC7DD@javelin.sau.southern.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Great stuff!
Yes, real life is never as simple as our explanations: actual history is far more complicated than the textbook presentations, the real universe is a lot more complicated than our scientific theories, and especially the way science is done in the real world has dimensions not even hinted at in the stereotypical presentation of the scientific method.
But! -- I would not call the streamlined, simplified explanation of the scientific method "phony". It's extremely simplified, but still helpful to emphasize fundamental features involved in the scientific enterprise. I routinely point out to my students that I personally can't be involved (by lack of aptitude, experience, and/or interest) in all aspects of the enterprise, but somewhere these factors are involved.
KC
Ken Caviness
Physics
Southern Adventist University
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "David Marx via Phys-l" <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Cc: "David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>
Subject: [Phys-L] electricity in the atmosphere
Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 2:51 PM
Thanks, John, for highlighting the NOVA episode, At the Edge of Space. To me
it is one of their best in showing how scientists actually do science. None
of this phony "scientific method" stuff. I have used the full episode when I
taught our lowest level general education physics class. I have students
watch it outside of class and write a short analysis (not a summary) and
answer a set of questions about it.
My daughter is taking an intro geology course and they require the students to
know the phony scientific method: hypothesis-theory-law. I can't believe this
stuff is still taught at the university level.
On Sat, February 10, 2018 9:35 am, John Denker via Phys-l wrote:
On 02/09/2018 06:47 PM, Derek McKenzie wrote:
I particularly appreciate the number estimates, as well as the idea of
modeling the phenomenon as a spherical capacitor.
For those who want to know more about the model.....
*) The books by Uman are useful but even the latest "revised"
edition is 50 years out of date. I haven't seen the 700-page tome by Rakov and
Uman but I gather it is more up-to-date.
*) Sprites in the upper atmosphere were predicted in 1921
by C.T.R. Wilson but not observed until 1989, and are still a hot topic of
research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSCwiQWzMa0
That NOVA episode gives a realistic portrayal of scientists
doing their job. In particular, ask your students how they would feel if they
spent years putting together a team and building equipment, then when the
conditions are right staying up all night and spending an additional
$100,000.00 to carry
out the mission, and coming back with ... nothing! If you don't know what that
feels like, you don't know what it's like to be a scientist.
Most remarkably, NOVA did not leave out the painful part of
the story.
A few nights later, good conditions come around again, so
they carry out the mission again, and come back with ... data. Gorgeous, highly
informative data.
Additional points to tell students:
-- Not all physics was done in the 1600s. There are still
interesting unanswered questions. -- Physics is mostly a team sport; you don't
have to be a lone genius like Galileo or Newton or Einstein to make a
contribution. -- A lot of it requires building fancy instruments and
exploiting modern technology. -- OTOH it usually doesn't require CERN-sized
teams or CERN-sized instruments. Sometimes a Gulfstream-V full
of fancy cameras will do nicely. -- There is joy at the end of the rainbow, but
you have to tolerate a lot of risk and pain before you get there. This requires
strength of character. Technical skill is not enough. -- It must be emphasized
that exploring blind alleys is part of the cost of obtaining information. A
mission that comes back with no data of the desired kind is not a mistake and
not a waste. Scientists take calculated risks, carefully balancing risk
versus reward. Don't take any more risk than necessary, or any less. https://www.av8n.com/physics/research-maze.htm
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:00:56 -0600
From: "David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] electricity?in the atmosphere
Message-ID:
<60e4de5ca23fa6a7eef44b75933e43c3.squirrel@webmail.phy.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Ken,
Real scientists do not form a single hypothesis at all. It is often presented
as a guess. Instead, scientists investigate a phenomena through observation
and experiment. There is no need to guess the outcome of an experiment, since
you just do it and see what happens. Guessing the outcome can introduce bias.
A hypothesis is best described as a possible outcome and a good scientist
knows which ones are more likely than others. But picking one in advance has
no benefit, unless there is some safety issue that as to be accounted for in
the experimental design.
The phony scientific method, as you point out, makes it seem like a single
person does all of the things: observation, hypothesis, testing, refinement of
experiment, theory/law. In reality, the scientific enterprise is most often
carried out by a large number of people over a long period of time.
Also, there are experimentalists and there are theorists.
It's important for students to understand that theorists create models that
are testable against the universe. The models compete to determine which is
correct. The model that survives is the theory. It's important for students
to understand that a theory is as close to truth as we get and that with new
methods and information that we may need to alter it or replace it.
We much better serve our students, particularly at the high school and
university level by fully explaining how science works. Including, how
scientific data is evaluated, understanding statistics, etc.
David
On Sat, February 10, 2018 2:45 pm, Ken Caviness wrote:
Great stuff!
Yes, real life is never as simple as our explanations: actual history is far
more complicated than the textbook presentations, the real universe is a lot
more complicated than our scientific theories, and especially the way science
is done in the real world has dimensions not even hinted at in the
stereotypical presentation of the scientific method.
But! -- I would not call the streamlined, simplified explanation of the
scientific method "phony". It's extremely simplified, but still helpful to
emphasize fundamental features involved in the scientific enterprise. I
routinely point out to my students that I personally can't be involved (by
lack of aptitude, experience, and/or interest) in all aspects of the
enterprise, but somewhere these factors are involved.
KC
Ken Caviness
Physics
Southern Adventist University
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "David Marx via Phys-l" <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Cc: "David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>
Subject: [Phys-L] electricity in the atmosphere
Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 2:51 PM
Thanks, John, for highlighting the NOVA episode, At the Edge of Space. To me
it is one of their best in showing how scientists actually do science. None
of this phony "scientific method" stuff. I have used the full episode when
I
taught our lowest level general education physics class. I have students watch
it outside of class and write a short analysis (not a summary) and answer a
set of questions about it.
My daughter is taking an intro geology course and they require the students
to know the phony scientific method: hypothesis-theory-law. I can't believe
this stuff is still taught at the university level.
On Sat, February 10, 2018 9:35 am, John Denker via Phys-l wrote:
On 02/09/2018 06:47 PM, Derek McKenzie wrote:
I particularly appreciate the number estimates, as well as the idea of
modeling the phenomenon as a spherical capacitor.
For those who want to know more about the model.....
*) The books by Uman are useful but even the latest "revised"
edition is 50 years out of date. I haven't seen the 700-page tome by Rakov
and Uman but I gather it is more up-to-date.
*) Sprites in the upper atmosphere were predicted in 1921
by C.T.R. Wilson but not observed until 1989, and are still a hot topic of
research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSCwiQWzMa0
That NOVA episode gives a realistic portrayal of scientists
doing their job. In particular, ask your students how they would feel if
they spent years putting together a team and building equipment, then when
the conditions are right staying up all night and spending an additional
$100,000.00 to carry
out the mission, and coming back with ... nothing! If you don't know what
that feels like, you don't know what it's like to be a scientist.
Most remarkably, NOVA did not leave out the painful part of
the story.
A few nights later, good conditions come around again, so
they carry out the mission again, and come back with ... data. Gorgeous,
highly informative data.
Additional points to tell students:
-- Not all physics was done in the 1600s. There are still
interesting unanswered questions. -- Physics is mostly a team sport; you
don't have to be a lone genius like Galileo or Newton or Einstein to make a
contribution. -- A lot of it requires building fancy instruments and
exploiting modern technology. -- OTOH it usually doesn't require CERN-sized
teams or CERN-sized instruments. Sometimes a Gulfstream-V full of fancy
cameras will do nicely. -- There is joy at the end of the rainbow, but you
have to tolerate a lot of risk and pain before you get there. This requires
strength of character. Technical skill is not enough. -- It must be
emphasized that exploring blind alleys is part of the cost of obtaining
information. A mission that comes back with no data of the desired kind is
not a mistake and not a waste. Scientists take calculated risks, carefully
balancing risk versus reward. Don't take any more risk than necessary, or
any less. https://www.av8n.com/physics/research-maze.htm
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:39:10 -0700
From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] electricity?in the atmosphere
Message-ID: <c33a1597-fdab-103f-583b-70678fd3a696@av8n.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 02/10/2018 01:45 PM, Ken Caviness wrote:
Yes, real life is never as simple as our explanations: actual
history is far more complicated than the textbook presentations, the
real universe is a lot more complicated than our scientific theories
And that's why we have stepping stones, building
blocks, and spiral paths. The motto is:
Start simple and proceed from there
(not start simple and just leave it there).
I would not call the streamlined, simplified explanation of the
scientific method "phony".
Beware, there are about 100 "simplified" versions.
Some of them are OK, but most of them are horribly
and needlessly oversimplified. More than a few
are phony. Some of the most prevalent ones are
acutely dangerous.
In particular, David Marx rightly objected to the
"hypothesis-theory-law" business. It fails coming
and going. It is not simple, nor true, nor anywhere
close to the path we want students to follow.