Here’s What Needs to be Explained

The results from this weekend’s question are in: “What is the one concept in science that you really think should be explained better to a wide audience?” I tried to collate the answers from Twitter and Facebook as well as here, at least up to the point where my patience evaporated. Answers below the fold, grouped into three categories: big concepts, specific ideas, and meta issues.

Scott Aaronson wrote, “The skill of sharpening a question to the point where it could actually have an answer.” Which is a skill I should probably try to develop myself, as the question I asked was amenable to different interpretations. Many people answered “evolution,” but as Ed Yong pointed out on Twitter, evolution is actually explained quite well in many places. So when we ask what needs to be explained better, there are at least two issues at work: what we actually do a bad job at explaining, and what doesn’t succeed at penetrating out into the public consciousness. In contrast with evolution, for example, I would say that quantum mechanics is explained in many places, but very rarely is it explained well.

The winner by a wide margin was the meta issue of “the scientific method.” Which raises another question: do we agree on what the scientific method is? I suspect not. But I am completely on board with the idea that “how science works” is not explained very well, and possibly a higher priority than any particular scientific concept.

Others that did well: evolution, statistics, certainty/uncertainty, entropy, quantum mechanics, time, and gravity. I cannot refrain from pointing out that these last four were all addressed at some length in From Eternity to Here. Which makes me think that what people are really saying is, “more folks should read Sean’s book.” Only 40 more shopping days ’till Xmas…

Also of note is that there wasn’t actually a great deal of consensus; the list of concepts that came up is quite long. Clearly we need to do a better job of explaining.

Here are the answers:

Big:

• Evolution (IIIIIIIIII)
• Entropy/Second Law (IIIIII)
• Quantum mechanics (IIII)
• Time (IIII)
• Gravity (IIII)
• Genetics (III)
• Supply and demand
• Energy
• Climate change
• Math
• Cognition
• Complexity
• Emergence
• Quantum field theory

Specific:

• Renormalization (III)
• Scale of the universe (III)
• F***ing magnets (III)
• Curvature of spacetime (II)
• Deep time (II)
• Particle/wave duality (II)
• Gyroscopes
• Cancer biology
• Wave equation
• The Big Bang
• Entanglement
• Deformation and torsion
• Radiation
• Force-carrying particles
• Toddler psychology
• Superposition
• The holographic principle
• Seasons
• The double-slit experiment
• Decoherence
• String theory
• Cognitive biases
• Duck sex
• Cognitive illusions
• Expansion of space
• Goedel’s incompleteness theorem
• Comparative advantage
• Spin 1/2
• Computational equivalence
• Laws of thermodynamics
• Principle of least action
• Fusion energy
• Weak interactions
• Price equation
• Black body radiation
• Comparative advantage
• Effective field theory
• Chirality
• Bell’s theorem
• Gears
• Climate vs. weather
• Arrow of time
• Conservation of energy
• Free will
• Tides
• Membrane theory
• Particle accelerators
• Speed of light
• Exponents

Meta:

• The scientific method (IIIIIIIIIIIIII)
• Statistics (IIIIIIII)
• Certainty/uncertainty (IIIIII)
• Falsifiability/testability (II)
• Time scales
• Comparing tiny numbers
• Scientists
• Occam’s razor
• Theory
• Confidence intervals
• Evidence vs. anecdotes
• Experimentation
• Peer review
• Basic research
• Null results
• Science doesn’t prove things