![[IOP]](http://images.iop.org/cws/icons/themes/phw/colophon-small.png){kind=icon}
By Margaret Harris
Here’s a Tuesday quiz for you. If you disagree with a colleague about something scientific, what should you do? Your choices are:
(a) Nothing. This is science, and the truth will win out no matter what I do;
(b) Take them aside and explain, privately, why you think they are wrong. Then, if they still disagree with you, get even by writing snarky anonymous reviews of their papers;
(c) Organize a panel “discussion” and tear them to shreds in front of all your colleagues;
(d) Take your case to the public by writing a popular-science book explaining the superiority of your own theory.
Okay, this is a trick question: I’m not sure any of those options is really a good idea (although I’m sure they’ve all been tried). I’d like to focus on the last one, though, because it was the subject of an interesting talk at the Science in Public conference, held last week in Physics World’s home city of Bristol.
In the talk, Kanta Dihal, a DPhil student in science communication at the University of Oxford, presented two examples of physicists making their disputes public. Her first example concerned the 20th-century astrophysicists George Gamow and Fred Hoyle, who backed competing theories of the universe’s origins. Gamow struck first by including a scene in his popular Mr Tompkins books that mocked Hoyle and his “steady-state” model. Later, Hoyle used a series of radio lectures on “The nature of the universe” (later made into a book of the same title) to advocate steady-state theory and rubbish the idea of a “Big Bang”.
Dihal’s second case of what she termed “nerd-on-nerd violence” was a more recent cosmological bunfight. Here, the chief writer-antagonists were Stephen Hawking, who believed (from the 1970s through the mid-2000s) that information is lost when objects fall into black holes, and Leonard Susskind, who argued that information loss would undermine all of quantum mechanics. Hawking’s early views on the subject appear in his 1989 bestseller A Brief History of Time, while Susskind based his entire 2008 book The Black Hole War on his efforts to (as the book’s subtitle puts it) “make the world safe for quantum mechanics”.
Dihal talked about various aspects of these books and their reception with the public, but the comment that really resonated with me was her observation that most popular-physics books have an “obligatory admiration chapter”. This, she explained, is where the authors write about how great Newton and Einstein were and attempt to link their own work (or whatever they’re writing about) to a grand tradition of linear scientific progress.
As Physics World’s reviews editor, I can vouch for the fact that most pop-physics books do indeed include a chapter of this type. And while many authors do a good job with their version of the “obligatory admiration chapter”, and a few even find something fresh to say, there is, unfortunately, a pattern of sameness and shallowness evident in most. Basically, if authors of pop-history books wrote like this, they’d start off with a canned account of world history up to a certain period, throw in some reheated explanations of concepts such as “kings” and “countries”, and only get to their actual subject (which, to complete the pop-science analogy, would be something that’s been written about n times already – the causes of the First World War, perhaps) halfway through the book. Then they’d finish up with a speculative chapter on, say, the Greek debt crisis to give the reader the illusion that they’d spent the previous 300 pages learning about real cutting-edge stuff.
Not all popular physics books fit this pattern, of course. And one could, I suppose, argue that the “obligatory admiration chapter” is partly a function of how little knowledge the book-buying public brings to the table. If your intended reader barely knows what atoms are or who Einstein was, then okay, yes, you need to start with the basics.
But in my experience, most pop-physics authors aren’t really writing for that audience (and if they are, they’re doing it wrong). More often, their ideal reader seems to be more like someone who was okay at science in high school, decided to study something else at university, and now wants to know what they missed. And I think people like that deserve a better, more nuanced and, yes, more challenging picture of what physics is really like – conflicts, uncertainties and all.
Settling educational disputes in public
I think this is a very good idea for settling educational disputes by involving the public also. This is because students can listen to both teachers as well as parents, especially those who are graduates of physics. I am concerned (nearly for 40 years) with students contrasting answers to questions on circular but evaluated in two different ways. Let me start with the investigation of John Warren (PEd. 1971).
In his problem, a car was shown, moving with constant speed on a circular path on a plane level ground. Students of First Year Engineering were asked to identify the resultant force acting on the car – neglecting the air resistance. About 45% students indicated forward force of the engine as the resultant one and only about 10% students answered centripetal as the resultant force. Hence the question is: Why students give contrasting answers, that is Newtonian thinking in conventional examinations (based on marks) and Aristotelian thinking in questionnaires (not based on marks). Subsequently, many investigators from various countries carried out similar investigations and observed the same and established the global character of the contrasting answers. Unfortunately this question is still unanswered and, I think, this a major cause behind students declining interest in physics. I suggested (PEd. March 1984) that 45% students will defend their wrong answer by stressing on the need of engine in the car. Also, I had to repeat the stand in later communication, On Josie’ thinking (PEd. July 2007), On the velocity of retrograde exoplanets (PEd. January 2012).
Therefore, I think it will be useful in organizing a public meeting on the problems in learning uniform circular motion and related topics like Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and Bohr’s theory of hydrogen atom. Lastly, let mention one point, which is not commonly known to physicists / teachers.
George Gamow: He used to call positrons as donkey electrons in personal discussions. I came to know of this comment from Victor F. Weisskopf in the personal communication (PEd. March 2001). Gamow used to call them donkey because they were displacing in the direction opposite to the applied force. In other words, Gamow also had Aristotelian thinking in mind when considering the behavior of positrons.
Hence I request Physics World to organize a conference, involving public for sorting out problems in learning circular motion and related topics. I am willing to take any academic responsibility for the same.
Trackback: Weekend Reading CVIII : Blogcoven
Good article, but I strongly disagree with labeling the Suskind-Hawking debate as nerd on nerd violence. I followed that discussion closely over the years, both in grad school and afterwards, and found both sides to be humorous and civil. Yes, there was the obligatory end-zone dance and spiking of the ball (the Black Hole Wars), but even that was good humored and very civil.
For those who didn’t follow this debate, bit books (Hawking’s and Susskind’s) are great reads and highly recomended.
Nice article. As I am myself revising and completing the first of two proposed books on the origin of the universe, I will not have any admiration chapter. Instead what I will have will be a few admiration quotes at the beginning of every chapter which I am sure will make a big impact. Actually I do not see any need to joke about other scientists’ writings, which are always serious issues, except perhaps the Big Bang joke of Hoyle.
Hello Abed, As you are revising and completing two books on the origin of universe, I suggest you to read my above comment (15th July) and add an appendix on problems in learning circular motion and related topics. I think it will support the impact of your book on public, especially young students.
I need some references.
Reply to Abed: To start with I suggest you to read my following comments on Physics World
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jun/29/edward-witten-wins-newton-medal
My cmt, 29 June, Newton’s thinking at 60+
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/2011/mar/14/michio-kaku-looks-to-the-physics-of-the-future
My cmt, 29 June, Future of Physics, then Big Physics
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/2014/mar/27/critical-point-feynmans-failing
My cmt, 31 March, Role of angels in dynamics
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/oct/03/nobel-laureate-martin-perl-dies-at-87
My cm, 03 Oct., Exceptional physicist
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2014/jul/17/a-century-of-general-relativity
My cmt, 19 July, Planetary motion: A teacher’s view
Please use dvsathe@gmail.com for further communication.
Thanks
Hello, I have a few problems with physics that I doubt I will be able to articulate very will. Its mostly because I am mathematically disabled. For me math is similar to when you’re trying to learn a new language and know the meaning to a word but cant pronounce it. My problem with physics is with the speed of light in space and its relationship with space-time. One night as I lay on the lawn watching the stars while thinking about Albert Einstein it accrued to me that all of his equations are wrong, that all of everyone’s theories must be wrong. At first I recognized that it is me that must be wrong seeing how I couldn’t fully understand the theories but when I read about repeated experiment that prove the existence of particles moving faster than light, I realized I have to be correct in my thinking that everything we think we know about the universe must be wrong. I cant seem the find a way to articulate my thought s on the subject properly nevertheless I need someone to enplane to me how the big bang thing could be true if particles truly do move faster than light. I find myself wandering how the smartest people who ever lived can be so ignorant to the fact that time isn’t a real thing. It only exist in the human brain as a measurement tool. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. thanks