All I can say is, someone must be reading Cosmic Variance. Sunday’s New York Times has an Op-Ed piece by Lisa Randall on how scientists communicate with the public, and it echoes many of the issues we’ve been discussing here at CV. One of her themes is how words are used differently by specialists than they are in common usage.
Scientists’ different use of language becomes especially obvious (and amusing) to me when I hear scientific terms translated into another language. “La théorie des champs” and “la théorie des cordes” are the French versions of “field theory” and “string theory.” When I think of “un champs,” I think of cows grazing in a pasture, but when I think of “field theory” I have no such association. It is the theory I use that combines quantum mechanics and special relativity and describes objects existing throughout space that create and destroy particles. And string theory is not about strings that you tie around your finger that are made up of atoms; strings are the basic fundamental objects out of which everything is made. The words “string theory” give you a picture, but that picture can sometimes lead to misconceptions about the science.
These amusing images underscore a real issue: the unintentional confusion caused when a scientist is trying to be perfectly precise, yet creates an entirely incorrect impression in the mind of a listener. Words like “energy” or “work” or “uncertainty” can mean different things to experts and non-experts.
And the stakes are high:
The very different uses of the word “theory” provide a field day for advocates of “intelligent design.” By conflating a scientific theory with the colloquial use of the word, creationists instantly diminish the significance of science in general and evolution’s supporting scientific evidence in particular. Admittedly, the debate is complicated by the less precise nature of evolutionary theory and our inability to perform experiments to test the progression of a particular species. Moreover, evolution is by no means a complete theory. We have yet to learn how the initial conditions for evolution came about – why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and at which level evolution operates are only two of the things we don’t understand. But such gaps should serve as incentives for questions and further scientific advances, not for abandoning the scientific enterprise.
This debate might be tamed if scientists clearly acknowledged both the successes and limitations of the current theory, so that the indisputable elements are clearly isolated. But skeptics have to acknowledge that the way to progress is by scientifically addressing the missing elements, not by ignoring evidence. The current controversy over what to teach is just embarrassing.
Word.
The very different uses of the word “theory” provide a field day for advocates of “intelligent design.”
In Spain we suffer the “right to have an oppinion”. Which misteriously extents to include the right to sustain unsubstatiated and even contradictory statements.
Ouch, the part you quoted contains IMO, the weakest part of the essay:
I think why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, rather than 24 or 22 is not that terribly interesting, certainly infinitely less interesting than the ratio of the muon mass to the electron mass. The 23 pairs is an accident of evolutionary history. “Humans have two fewer (one pair) chromosomes compared to chimpanzees . However, human chromosome 2 seems to be a combination of two smaller chromosomes found in apes.” As far as I know, this kind of accident is commonplace.
“At which level evolution operates” – this may indeed be a big puzzle, but the brief phrase suffers from the very unclearness and ambiguity that Lisa Randall worries about. Certainly it is not clear to me what is meant by it.
Likewise, what does this mean – “We have yet to learn how the initial conditions for evolution came about” ?
If this means “we don’t understand the origins of life”, why not state that?
Otherwise, conditions for evolution are systems that replicate with variations, and the operation of a selection principle that results in differences in the replication success of the variations.
—
One more thing – “if the public didn’t treat math as quite so scary” – is it a specific cultural thing to “be scared of math” (or be thought of as a geek), or is this universal human experience?
I think that a big part of the misconception issue stems from the necessity to have considerable formal training in the relevant science(s) to have even a fundamental grasp of the concepts/ theories being discussed. Think about it – you don’t need any formal legal training to have some idea about the proceedings of the Roberts hearings. But an intelligent non-specialist would not be able to follow a discussion on String Theory.
You could say, “never have so many known so little about so much”. There is a huge gulf between what scientists and mathematicians now do and what the general public has in the way of language and concepts to even begin to be able to understand. Can you really explain a conformal field theory or a topological field theory to a layperson for example, or even to someone in biology or biochemistry? There are also a huge gulf between different areas of science, and even within a single area of science. For example, string theory, where a considerable number of the physics community simply do not understand it.
I am not quite sure if the number of popular science books really do anything to address this. I bought a copy of Penrose’s latest book (Road to Reality) from someone who said they could not get past page 10. I still think good science education has to begin very early from the first year in school or earlier so that children grow up with a least an appreciation of the beauty, wonder and power of science and the natural world (and math too), even if they don’t pursue it as teens or adults. At least they would be well versed in the very basic concepts. Apart from that, it instills critical thinking at an early age, which is beneficial in any career choice and is overall beneficial to society too. Newspapers and magazine editors would also be flooded with complaints about their incompetance when they confuse “voltage” and “current” for example. Sadly, the very existance of the “intelligent design” debate means my vision is probably not going to be realized.
Pingback: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Dangling Particles
I think that a big part of the misconception issue stems from the necessity to have considerable formal training in the relevant science(s) to have even a fundamental grasp of the concepts/ theories being discussed. Think about it – you don’t need any formal legal training to have some idea about the proceedings of the Roberts hearings. But an intelligent non-specialist would not be able to follow a discussion on String Theory.
Though not of the Feynman school of worship, I gotta go with Feynman on this one. If you can’t explain it to a layman (given the caveat that there will be a LOT of background to be filled in), then
1) you can’t write a good grant application
2) you don’t fully understand what it is you are doing.
An article in the Washington Post also addresses ID today, from an unusual viewpoint, a minister who feels it is important for his parishoners to understand the specifics of evolution by sponsoring a course taught within the church called “Evolution for Christians.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091700117.html
Pingback: The Quantum Pontiff » Delta X Delta P
Pingback: e pur si muove » Blog Archive » New York Times Op/Ed On Modern Physics
Wasn’t Gregor Mendel a Christian priest / monk who was able to understand the difference between his faith / belief and the science he was doing? Mendel may be a great example for minister mentioned in the comment by Lee.
Hasn’t evolution moved from theory to applied science especially with the genome projects? Yet for intelligent design this would likely make no difference, for it is also about history. Many supporters, who link this speculative idea to creation science, limit their history to a literal interpretation of the Bible. These supporters make use of ‘lack of evidence’ but provide no ‘extraordinary evidence’ and also tend to rely upon quoting of scripture.
Maybe we could come up with an official symbol on the order of ™ or © to distinguish the use of a term in the official scientific sense; perhaps sci or ST for “scientific term”. This could be used in publications for the layman to make the distinction clear, and administered and enforced by a national and international scientific bodies, just as ™ is now. So we’d have the TheoryST of Evolution vs. the theory of Intelligent Design, and when a creationist says “well, evolution is just a theory,” we’d say “no, it’s a TheoryST! (Okay, that only really works in writing; verbally you’d maybe have to use a 50s sci-fi movie scientist voice instead.)
I’m only half joking, I think…
As far as I know, this kind of accident is commonplace.
In fact it is a cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution: if there were no accidents, then a theory of inteligent design could be even scientific. It is very very wrong to try to wipe accidents out, one can easily be driven into believing on a Plan.
A fine example of scientists and artists speaking two languages that employ the same words was provided by Lisa Randall’s recent spot on ‘Start the Week’ on BBC Radio4. Professor Randall used ‘theory’ in the sense discussed here and elsewhere; the good and the great from the world of art seemed to think it meant – ‘anything you might like to think of’. Things came to a juddering halt when LR said ‘I understood everything you said, until you used the word culture’
Calling the intelligent design advocates “skeptics” is a gross overstatement of their position in the scientific community and gives them much undo gravity.
She seems to imply that the current “controversy” is embarassing because biologists haven’t been able to communicate with the public. This is unfair.
We have natural history museums all over this and other countries. We’ve been in and out of court for 80+ years. All the major professional societies are on record as supporting the teaching of evolution. The list of popular books can fill several bookcases.
The fault doesn’t lie with the biologists.
If a well financed group like the Discover Institute can have such an influence in this society, it’s not because biologists haven’t identitfied the “limitations” of evolutionary theory (which we have, BTW and thank you very much). She is being grossly unfair to biologists. It is not our responibility alone to imbue all of soceity with a respect and broad understanding of science. And that’s what the controversy is really about.
These blog entries force the mind to consider what they are saying and wonder.
I just wanted to link my blog entry with a response not only to Sean ‘s issues with theory facts etc. and Lisa Randall’s article, to say, that observation of facts can be taken to a whole new lengths🙂
Agreed Samuel. And well put. All of us who understand and value rational thought are in this together. We’re facing a well-orchestrated political campaign, not a mass confusion
Pingback: Larvatus Prodeo
Pingback: Now That’s What I’m Talking About! | Cosmic Variance