Kottke.org has a great video clip of renowned physicist Richard Feynman explaining why he can't explain why magnets attract and repel one another.
"When you explain a 'why' [question] you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise you're perpetually asking why. [...] You have to know what it is that you're permitted to understand, and allow to be understood and known, and what it is you're not."
And scientists get upset* when people draw analogies between physics and postmodernism!
(Many thank to Rob for this link.)
PS. I asked a physicist friend recently if people in her field still give a shit about the Sokal affair* and she said "naw, not really. It wasn't a peer-reviewed journal and that's all anyone cares about these days." Of course, folks in the humanities are still writhing in shame.
|
Inserting into syllabus as we speak.
I'm fascinated by science writers who can provide frameworks to explain things that otherwise could only be understood by students who have significant foundational work. My background in biology and chemistry is very weak, but I get a lot out of reading Richard Dawkins, P Zed Myers (who sometimes throws some pretty deep evo-devo science into his blog which is otherwise mostly anti-irrationalist polemics), and (currently) Jerry Coyne.
By the way, Feynman does slip in a rather nice explanation in there, but it was secondary to his point. Good stuff.
I agree with you Mark, except I wonder what Feynman would have said about the kinds of metaphorical analogies that Dawkins resorts too ("selfish" gene).
I suspect Dawkins regrets the selfish gene metaphor because a) it's been misinterpreted as a gene that causes selfishness and b) attributing intention to genes or life forms or the evolutionary process just muddies the water. Other than humans, no life form "wants" to perpetuate its particular set of genes, it just kinda looks that way. What they "want," due to innate drives, is to eat, fuck, etc. But evolution has been saddled with this "intent" baggage since the beginning. By making the comparison between the artificial selection of breeders and the natural selection of evolution, Darwin injected an implication of intent.
Metaphors are frameworks that provide a context that aids understanding yet contain biases that ultimately limit understanding. (E.g. "Is light a wave or a particle?" "Arrrrggg!")
I doubt he regrets the resulting book sales. (I'm such a pissy bitch today)
|
Kottke.org has a great video clip of renowned physicist Richard Feynman explaining why he can't explain why magnets attract and repel one another. And scientists get upset* when people draw analogies between physics and postmodernism!
(Many thank to Rob for this link.)
PS. I asked a physicist friend recently if people in her field still give a shit about the Sokal affair* and she said "naw, not really. It wasn't a peer-reviewed journal and that's all anyone cares about these days." Of course, folks in the humanities are still writhing in shame.
- sally mckay 2-05-2010 12:57 pm
Inserting into syllabus as we speak.
- joester (guest) 2-06-2010 10:50 pm
I'm fascinated by science writers who can provide frameworks to explain things that otherwise could only be understood by students who have significant foundational work. My background in biology and chemistry is very weak, but I get a lot out of reading Richard Dawkins, P Zed Myers (who sometimes throws some pretty deep evo-devo science into his blog which is otherwise mostly anti-irrationalist polemics), and (currently) Jerry Coyne.
By the way, Feynman does slip in a rather nice explanation in there, but it was secondary to his point. Good stuff.
- mark 2-07-2010 7:25 am
I agree with you Mark, except I wonder what Feynman would have said about the kinds of metaphorical analogies that Dawkins resorts too ("selfish" gene).
- sally mckay 2-07-2010 3:52 pm
I suspect Dawkins regrets the selfish gene metaphor because a) it's been misinterpreted as a gene that causes selfishness and b) attributing intention to genes or life forms or the evolutionary process just muddies the water. Other than humans, no life form "wants" to perpetuate its particular set of genes, it just kinda looks that way. What they "want," due to innate drives, is to eat, fuck, etc. But evolution has been saddled with this "intent" baggage since the beginning. By making the comparison between the artificial selection of breeders and the natural selection of evolution, Darwin injected an implication of intent.
Metaphors are frameworks that provide a context that aids understanding yet contain biases that ultimately limit understanding. (E.g. "Is light a wave or a particle?" "Arrrrggg!")
- mark 2-10-2010 7:55 pm
I doubt he regrets the resulting book sales. (I'm such a pissy bitch today)
- L.M. 2-10-2010 8:01 pm