Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book



Absolutely false. To call "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" a law is false. It's not even true, we have had a more accurate explanation for gravity since 1916: General Relativity. That too is not a final answer, since it demonstrably disagrees with quantum mechanics.

F = G m1 m2 / r^2 is an excellent approximation, that is adequate for 99% of what we do. Yes, it gives the right answers or nearly the right answers almost all the time. That's what "excellent approximation" means.

Wherever Newton got it right, General Relativity gives the right answers too. Planes fly correctly, your jumping ability is what is to be expected, common things operate correctly. But in other situations, where Newton gets the wrong answers, Einstein gets it right. (And in still other places, both are WRONG. But good approximations.)

Don't let your irritation about misunderstandings of non-scientists cause you to say false things. Find a way to give correct information, without feeding public misconceptions, but without setting yourself up for a fall.

I suggested: "This is the only consistent explanation" instead of "It's proven".

What does the group think of that? I submit that it is not giving a wrong impression, it is not feeding any misunderstandings or medieval thinking. "It's proven" is never true, and even the non-scientist will eventually realize that you were wrong to make that claim, and you will then be completely discredited.

Savvy?

KC


________________________________________
Marty Weiss [martweiss@comcast.net] said:

Likewise... Newton's gravitation still holds true. No matter how you try to spin it, gravity is real and the equations are solved every day... otherwise all the planes would fly off into space, we would be able to jump 100 meters, and other common things wouldn't operate. To say otherwise is again pandering to the base instincts of the antiscience crowd.

We can argue these things on a physics forum, but to say the same things in public is completely wrong headed and just feeds into the medieval thinking that pervades this country.
On Sep 16, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Ken Caviness wrote:

I don't think that the average person's misunderstanding of what a theory is excuses us for making too strong statements. My opponent's exaggeration doesn't justify my exaggerated rebuttal. Only in rhetoric is this useful, for emotional argumentation, not a convincing line of evidence and argument.

Perhaps a different tack is to use the words "model" or "explanation" more than the word "theory", which the man on the street misunderstands. But in the sense of rigorous proof, no, the theory of evolution is not proven.

Let's try a simpler example -- hey, one from physics instead of from biology! For centuries the best model we had to explain gravity was Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation, F = G m1 m2 / r^2. It justified its use repeatedly over the years, giving good answers when used, answers that agreed with experiment and observation, within the precision possible. Although I deprecate using the word "law" at all in science, Newton's explanation of gravity was one of the most well-substantiated theories ever invented. After many years of successful use, most scientists probably felt justified in assuming it to be true. But they would have been wrong to claim that it was _proven_. In fact, not only was it not proven, it wasn't even true!

Since then, Newton's formula for gravity has been _proven_ to be false -- although still a very good approximation for most situations we are faced with on a day-to-basis. Science doesn't prove things, science gives good explanations for real-world phenomena. If reliable data is found that disagrees with the theory, it has been falsified, it is false. (We don't drop a successful theory at the first apparent disagreement, however, it may turn out that the data was faulty, or there was a larger uncertainty in the experiment than was thought, some factor was overlooked, etc.)

Rather than claiming that this or that model or theory has been "proven in every aspect and then some", we should say, "This is the only consistent explanation." Among scientists this would have to be qualified: "This is the only consistent explanation that is available at this time." That way we're not claiming some non-existent proof, but we are sending a very clear message, quite different from the "just a theory" idea that the non-scientist might be hoping for.

KC @ SAU

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Marty Weiss
Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2012 3:21 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] strange things in chem book


Our problem isn't only with our terminology, it lies in our communication skills to the non-scientist and to our younger students who pick up on these misconceptions at an early age from well meaning teachers who have been taught the same misconceptions. And so on... down through the generations. The miscommunication seems to be in the ambiguities we use and the way scientists cannot always agree on the usage. Although it's probably incorrect in scientific circles, we have to start being as forceful in our communicating these terms as the anti-scientists are in communicating the nonsense we hear every day, such as "the theory of evolution is not proven." Well, let's start by refuting that in no uncertain term... "Yes, it is proven in every aspect and then-some." No more beating around the bush with "falsifiability" or "yes but there are things we don't know yet". The general layman falls asleep at our attempts to communicate with them the same way we would amongst ourselve
s.
In the end we get nowhere except to validate the idea of scientists as geeks who don't know what they are talking about.

For starters... We have to start using the word 'hypothesis' in place of 'theory' where we mean some new discovery that is under discussion or as you stated, "suggesting something we cannot be sure about." The latter may mean it is newly discovered, or maybe something that is still in doubt. I began using this distinction whenever someone asks about the theory of evolution and added that because it's 'just' a theory so "even scientists aren't sure about the truth yet." I have started explaining evolution in no uncertain terms as an absolute truth, which the basis of evolution is, and forget about trying to explain the various contradictions and ambiguities. It is real, it works, it explains what the facts are... period, end of discussion. If the right wing antiscientists can get away with such statements I certainly will not give away the argument just because the average man on the street is brainwashed to their way of thinking. It's time we countered with some brainwas
hi
ng of our own.

Now, many here will be crying out in despair... "We simply can't do this... it's just not science to speak in absolutes this way." Well, I say we'd better stop our whimpering about losing the battle and then every year find ourselves writing the same discussion group threads about why people don't believe in science. Appeasement doesn't work with evil dictators... it doesn't work with the anti-scientists. What I am suggesting is blasphemy to most scientists... talking in the same absolutes as the anti-scientists do. But, we better start getting our ideas across to the public or this antiscience will win the day and we will lose the dollars and the minds of the millions who listen to them and nod in agreement with their nonsense.

On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:

Of course, all these terms means what enough people want them to mean,
and meanings shift. But I agree with John that laws and theories are
quite different. (Perhaps it gets confusing when we also consider
models - as models can overlap with both - so let's not go there right
now.)

There seems however to be a common perception among school age students (certainly from some recent interviews for a project I am involved in) that theories can become laws. This seems to be linked to the recognised conjectured nature of theories and the apparent definitiveness of laws. Of course the mistake there is to see laws as actual knowledge (because they seem exact) and theories as hypothetical (because 'theory' suggests something we cannot be sure about) whereas both law and theory can be seen as part of scientific knowledge - and so in principle provisional as all scientific knowledge is open to revision in the light of new evidence.

The interesting question (to my mind) is to what extent this is influenced by the way we teach or how these terms are used in the media and the 'lifeworld', and so how we could help learners acquire a more sophisticated understanding of such term.

This is of more than academic interest when global warning or ozone depletion (etc) is seen as just a 'just a theory'

Keith


At 13:08 -0500 16/9/12, John Clement wrote:
But a theory is NEVER promoted to be called a law. That was a
misconcepted idea promoted in the mid 20th century. Look at all the
things called laws and they are basically principles or equations.
Boyle's law
Gay Lussacs law
Newton's laws
Ohm's law
.... Please come up with more items on the list.

Quantum theory is never called a law.
Relativity theory is never called a law Classical mechanics is never
called a law The standard model is not called a law Electromagnetic
theory is not called a law ... Any other examples???

Can you name one theory which was promoted to be called a law??? I can't.

And Boyle's law is falsifiable at some pressures and temperatures, so
laws are not even absolute. Ohm's law is also not true for very high currents.
Some are merely empirical principles or equations, while others are
considered to be more fundamental. Newton's gravitational law has to
be modified in the light of relativity and QM, but it is still called
a law and is used.

So the idea that a theory becomes a law is not really correct. Now a
hypothesis or a postulate can be come a law if it is established as a
verifiable relationship. But a law is a limited thing and usually
contains not explanation and many may be part of theories. This was
obviously someone thinking that theories are tentative and laws are
facts. If you type in a search engine "theory becomes a law"
virtually all of the early hits deny that this ever happens. I think
that creationist sites may buy into this linguistic misconception, so
they can say the evolution is just a theory and not a law.

Unfortunately this misconception appeared in all mid 20th century
texts and is still in some modern ones, so many people still harbor
this idea. I suspect that most elementary and HS teachers still
harbor this linguistic misconception. Incidentally there have been
some Physics Teacher articles about this. I am shocked that the
abstract got past the reviewers. But then lots of things get past the reviewers.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Here is a relevant fragment of my paper which will be published in
the proceedings of the Society of Philosophy of Science (SPS)
conference in Montreal (June 2012):

"3. Levels of Confidence in Scientific Claims: Data and Explanations.

A discovered experimental fact is usually presented to the
scientific community, to be independently confirmed or refuted.
Experimental results are accepted--at a high level of
confidence--when they become reproducible on demand.
Absence of such reproducibility justifies suspicion of possible
errors or fraud. Methods of validation of theories
(explanations of facts) are slightly different. A new
scientific theory is also presented to a community of experts, to be
independently evaluated. Their level of confidence in a theory
depends on the validity of underlying assumptions and on the rigor
of quantitative analysis. But even a most reliable scientific
theory, called a law, is said to be falsifiable, in principle, when
conflict with reproducible-on-demand data becomes undeniable (15).
Such unusual conflict could trigger a scientific revolution (16).

To explain something usually means to identify causes and to
construct a logically satisfying model of reality. An attempt to
explain a fact, or to resolve an apparent logical conflict, usually
leads to discoveries of other facts. A classical example was the
discovery of planet Neptune, in 1846. A more recent and less widely
known example was the discovery of a subatomic particle named
neutrino.
Experimental data collected in the 1920's showed that beta rays
(electrons emitted in radioactive decay) had lower mean energies
than expected on the basis of the theoretical E=mc2 formula.
Austrian theoretical physicist W. Pauli solved this "logical
inconsistency" by suggesting that tiny neutral particles, later
named neutrinos, were responsible for the missing energy. His
hypothesis was formulated in 1933.
Experiments confirming the reality of neutrinos were performed, 23
years later. "

Ludwik Kowalski
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

P.S. The title of the paper is "Philosophical and Social Aspects of
the Cold Fusion Controversy."
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--

Dr. Keith S. Taber

Editor: Chemistry Education Research and Practice (Published by the
Royal Society of Chemistry)
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/rp/about.asp


Book Reviews Editor: Studies in Science Education
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03057267.asp


Senior Lecturer in Science Education
Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/~kst24/index.html

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l