The idea of this session was to give an overview of how scientific knowledge is generated, in a broad sense. Then in the forthcoming session, to expand up on how society effects science in terms of funding, driving questions, etc.
Here’s the presentation.
systematic knowledge- First a simplistic model of scientific exploration was laid out:
- We begin by coming across abnormal observations, and how we react to it.
- If it were interesting to us, we’d try to study it more using ‘thought-works’ or experimentally and get more details about the particular observation. I gave an example of how we react to mosquitoes. While most of us will shun the very thought about them or kill as many we can afford to spend our energy on, only a very few will be interested in studying them more. A lot of interesting stuff can be found if one digs in. For example, a 45 million year old mosquito with blood like content in it.
- We’d ask questions, refer to previous studies, do more experiments that verify the observation, some cause-effect systems, etc.
- Then, but this time we would have so much overwhelming information that it may seem to be interesting to form a judgement on what the observation could be a part of – a pattern or a model. This model is a hypothesis and this gives a benefit of creating more focus on what to study in deep. The most plausible hypothesis gets the biggest effort and others are not much studied. Through a hypothesis we could also begin to use it to ‘predict’ future related observations, and if we are correct, then it adds more credibility to the model hypothesis.
- However, sometimes an original hypothesis is often limited in the scope of ‘tweakability’, so much that it must be dropped in favor of a better hypothesis that encompasses or atleast has the scope to encompass as the reason behind the a larger set of available data.
- Then a joke, saying how scientist could feel once they have gone too deep into the subject 🙂
- That was about how it works – knowledge generation. Following slides looked into how the teaching of science occurs in India, which we have a problem with. Students agreed mostly here, but all were first year students and MM was the only 2nd year student. The dissenting 4th year ones (PK and SD) were missing. It would have been interesting to have their views as well!
- Then we touched up-on how science works in reality – a fascinating and often quoted work by T.S. Kuhn. And outline of his work can be found here but i didn’t read the whole thing, not presented the whole. Only a snapshot in the slides.
- Then again a joke on how scientists see the world and an un-joke about how it really happens. I recounted an event while i was driving to SSLA that morning – it involved a girl driving in front of me with her long hair open and subject to air currents. The two branches of hair were counter-rotating as she sped through the wide road. This was so fascinating. My friends would sneer that i am following/stalking women, but in my defense i must say it was only for the sake of science (see Richard Feynman’s interview section on science and beauty)! By the way, these are called Von Kármán Vortices, after the scientist who described the physics of it. An example here: NASA image of cloud patterns formed on canary islands. Here’s A fantastic video showing how these are formed on aircraft wingtips.
Analysis
Here again there was not much discussion and discovery. It must have felt like a public lecture where there are some jokes, graphics on screen and so on and not so much as reflection and discussion on the subject. Also, i realize that the flow of the course has been very turbulent and that the students must be totally confused as to where this all is leading. Next time i must make a chart of what happened and where we have to go.
Student questions (see note from last blog post)
- UB
- When one forms a hypothesis, how does one know if its true and worth investing time in verifying? Is it all trial and error after that? Does this approach not lead to waste of time? (A: There is no new discovery without taking risks, often much time is lost and could be considered waste, but in retrospect nothing is wasted but only built upon.)
- By simply studying science in school, is it really going to awaken the scientific spirit? Is it taught the right way? seems to be driving people away from it more and more!
- Are all phenomena in this universe interrelated in one way or the other? (A: wouldn’t it be fun to find one core physical law that can explain everything? See GUT)
- Have we reached an irreversible stage on earth where there’s only natural disasters and catastrophes in future? We are searching for new planets and places to settle outside the earth, instead of trying to repair the mess we’v created.
- When a new theory is discovered, is the old theory still relevant or is completely redundant? Does the new theory completely become the basis for all future explorations? (A: see here for some explanation.)
- MG
- In 2nd class we talked about traditions, how they govern large masses and why people conform to them. Is there any way to change people’s mentality? (A: If you read Harari’s ‘Sapiens’ you will see how important culture and traditions are to humans to become as strong and as dominant a species on the Earth. We also looked at how they are important in our lives. Only as times progress, traditions need to be replaced by new traditions better suited to the contemporary understanding of the world and universe. Its here that science and technology has been playing a big role for past few centuries.)
- In the science model slide, there were multiple processes of gathering information. Can you explain how they are interrelated and go in parallel or series with one another?
- Do you think science teaching can be changed in India? And what could be the opposition to this change? For example, wont the school authorities oppose conducting more experiments or giving students more ‘hands-on’ time? Are there better practical alternatives to teaching sciences?
- Why are patterns essential to human thinking? Why is it that even when in places where there aren’t any patterns we imagine patterns there? Can you explain science again as an accumulation of patterns (bricks-building example)?
- How is it that with every hypothesis scientists get closer to reality?
- Do you think science fiction (books and movies) are a good way to generate interest in sciences?
- SV
- Science is questioning things in front of us. At what point of time do you stop questioning?
- We discussed about necessity and better ways to teach science. How to implement these obvious things in real life?
- Is scientific temper/interest is something you are born with? Or it depends on the method through which you are introduced to the subject?
- Is it fair to put science at a pedestal? Ans isolate that part of the society?
- Everything has exceptions and grounds on which the theory will fail. So is there anything called absolute truth?
- RR
- How do patterns help in understanding something? Wont it just be more confusion (because there will always be outlier data) ?
- What is the line between prediction and affirmative bias? (A: See Taleb’s Black Swan or his video talk here.)
- Isn’t science teaching killing curiosity?
- Doesn’t science need to be studied as a serious subject to be viewed as beautiful? Because you have to understand something for finding it beautiful! (A: But you also need to find it beautiful so as to take the pains to understand it further!)
- If teachers and parents perpetuate that one needs to focus on math and science just so that one can have a cushy life, is that bad?
- Isn’t science tough because it is taught to people who don’t wanna learn it (like having a mental block or things like it)?
- MM
- Why is gravity a wave? (A: see this funny and light video here.)
- Is there anything useful about mosquitoes? (A: Do you mean to humans? A mosquito may ask the inverse, “Is there anything useful about humans? – except food ofcourse, but apart from that?” OK to answer-here’s one. But the question you pose is very interesting and hints at anthropocentric world view – this could be an interesting read!)
- Do you think science has a solution for every societal problem? (A: No)
- Do you think science itself will be replaced by another idea in coming future? (A: Fantastic idea, wait and watch!)
- Is there any way to come up with scientific theories purely based on past theories but not experimentation?