Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 08:23:55 -0700
From: "David L. Porter" <dlporter@marin.k12.ca.us>
To: Pinhole Listserv <pinhole@exploratorium.edu>
Subject: Floating Pennies and Why questions
Two things:
1. Regarding the free fall in Drop Zone (I apologize for my lack of timeliness,
but my original post didn't get through), isn't it possible that the latching
mechanism that hauls the cars to their lofty heights might be somewhat spring
loaded to create more of a dramatic sensation to the rider? Has anyone ever
inquired into this? It sure would be a simpler explanation.
2. I don’t think Mark A. was fanning any flames.
Marc Afifi wrote:
> I'd like to begin by stating unequivocally that it is NOT my intention
> to start or fan flames on this discussion group. I fear that my earlier
> post in response to the discussion of the question why may have done
> precisely that but it was absolutely not my intention. If that was the
> result, I am truly sorry. Please take no offense to my writings, I
> really do not intend any.
The topic of what kinds of questions science can reasonably ask is really an
interesting one, and after reading this thread I’d like to throw in my two cents
worth. These are just my reflections which I have struggled to articulate.
After fretting over whether I got it right or even if it would make sense to
another reader I decided just to send it on its way to all of you at Pinhole. I
appreciate feed back and your corrections to any inaccuracies I might have
made.
My knowledge of the history of science is pretty basic, but weren't religion and
science one and the same up until around the time of Galileo when the Church
needed to maintain its geocentric view of the universe while Galileo -- down
through Copernicus -- advanced the heliocentric view? Many scientists were
deeply religious, as was Newton who marvelled at God’s work and sought to
understand how it all fit together and ran. I don’t believe Newton was trying
to answer why it was as it was. Some may feel the distinction between "How?"
and "Why?" is one of semantics, but I don't believe it is. It seems science,
through observation and experimentation, is a method of explaining (or trying to
explain) the mechanisms of how the Universe runs. That is, the scientist asks
"How is it that things are the way they are?" or "How did the world come to be
as it is?" To ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" is to ask a qualitatively
different and deeper question and I don't believe it is a scientific question,
though it is certainly a question that all of us, scientists included, are
compelled to ask. It's a philosophical or spiritual question. When such a
question is asked within the discipline of science, what other answer could
there possibly be than to reply, "because it is" or "it's as nature wants it to
be"?
I think we get ourselves into a bind when, faced with not having a logical
explanation, we reduce an answer to the question, "Why?", down to chance or
accident when we really have no idea why. A prime example is evolution. My
limited understanding of natural selection with its accompanying random
mutations is that it accounts for the MECHANISM of how life became (becoming?)
what it is. From the scientist's perspective each of those mutations is
"random", that is there is no way of predicting a single mutation. One mutation
is equally likely as the next. The word random doesn't mean to occur by
accident, I don't think. We typically say something happened by accident or
chance when we can't identify a reason or purpose for why it happened. The
randomness of these individual mutations unfortunately get misinterpreted,
extended and misconstrued to infer that the evolutionary process as a whole
happened by chance. (Biology teachers, help me out here! Am I correct in my
understanding that the theory of evolution explains only the mechanism?)
Science can't say that, it has no way of knowing whether we’re here because of
accident or purpose. Science can say, however, “That’s HOW it happened”. Is
there a larger, underlying intelligence/purpose to it all or not? That, the
scientific discipline can’t answer, as there is no experiment that could be
contrived to test it. If we answer no from a scientific stand point, we do the
spirit of science a disservice. Such a response is too anthropomorphic, for it
limits the notion of "purpose" to whatever we can understand. From my own
humanist perspective, I agree with Einstein when he said that, “God doesn't play
dice”. But the Uncertainty Principle really doesn't imply that He does!
Simply because we observe a probabilistic universe does not mean the universe
came into being by accident nor that it is without purpose. If one chooses to
believe so, that’s fine, but it is not as a result of scientific thinking.
A disservice is also done to religion by those who maintain that the Creation
Myth has any basis in science. It does not. The world’s creation stories
provide (as does poetry) a deep and vital link to that part of our existence
that can’t adequately be grappled with by way of rational, linear thought (When
I speak of science I’m referring specifically to its logical method of
inquiry.) Both accounts of creation, scientific and mythic (or biblical in the
Judeo Christian world) are beautiful and, I believe, true in their unique
methods. I prefer to use each to enrich the other. Myth uses the power of
metaphor, while science uses the power of reason and logic. Together, both
explain our observations of the universe and help to make us feel a little more
connected to it and with each other.
While in its adolescence it was necessary for science to break free from
religion's prevailing authority for its own survival and growth. But the schism
between science and religion is unfortunate as well, because it gets in our way
of appreciating the whole beauty of nature, both the logical and the illogical,
the rational and irrational. I would like to see the two reconciled one day.
For now, I am grateful for the sepparation of church and state.
The inverse square law is itself beautiful, and I would guess it was
understood to some degree by more than just our own western civilization.
Chances are, there are some equally ancient and wise stories from around the
world that explain its existence (albeit through metaphor).
May I recommend the movie "Mind Walk" as an aid to addressing this topic to high
school physics students. I haven't viewed it in a long while but seem to recall
it would be pertinent here. Schroedinger’s little book, “What is Life?” is also
worthwhile.
I hope I didn’t ramble or repeat myself too much. I apologize if I did.
David
-- Leverage Tutoring "Give me a lever long enough & somewhere to stand, and I'll move the earth" - Archimedes