From: Pentcho Valev on 30 Jul 2010 10:15 More clues to the question "Why is science not part of culture?": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3338512/Think-big-like-Einstein.html Martin Rees: "Cynics have said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920 onwards. Although there's something rather noble about the way he persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some respects THE EINSTEIN CULT SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL." http://articles.courant.com/2009-03-26/news/thorson0326.art_1_science-education-theory-of-general-relativity-arthur-eddington "Albert Einstein strengthened science through his contributions, but he may have inadvertently crippled science education through his example. This notion is supported by an editorial, "Redefining Science Education," published in January by Bruce Alberts, editor in chief of the journal Science. His main concern is that "many college-educated adults in the United States," including teachers, "fail to understand that science is a way of knowing completely different from mysticism, tradition and faith." Science is based on "evidence that can be logically and independently verified," rather than on personal authority. Most of the public accepted Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity based on his authority, rather than on the evidence presented." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/relativity-and-relativism/ Washington Times: "A frequently heard statement of cultural relativism goes like this: "If it feels right for you, it's OK. Who is to say you're wrong?" One individual's experience is as "valid" as another's. There is no "preferred" or higher vantage point from which to judge these things. Not just beauty, but right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. The "I" indeed is the "ultimate measure." The special theory of relativity imposes on the physical world a claim that is very similar to the one made by relativism. (...) So how come the speed of light always stays the same? Einstein argued that when the observer moves relative to an object, distance and time always adjust themselves just enough to preserve light speed as a constant. Speed is distance divided by time. So, Einstein argued, length contracts and time dilates to just the extent needed to keep the speed of light ever the same. Space and time are the alpha and omega of the physical world. They are the stage within which everything happens. But if they must trim and tarry whenever the observer moves, that puts "the observer" in the driver's seat. Reality becomes observer-dependent. Again, then, we find that the "I" is the ultimate measure. Pondering this in Prague in the 1950s, Beckmann could not accept it. The observer's function is to observe, he said, not to affect what's out there. Relativity meant that two and two didn't quite add up any more and elevated science into a priesthood of obscurity. Common sense could no longer be trusted." ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf "From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are "riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6 of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854 (Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the (thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)." http://www.rsc.org/pdf/uchemed/papers/2002/p2_carson.pdf "For many students, the study of thermodynamics presents problems; it is seen as consisting almost entirely of equations which are not understood and which have to be learned by rote in order to do calculations and to pass examinations." http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23682 "In 1929, when spectral analysis revealed a 'red shift' in distant galaxies, astronomer Edwin Hubble speculated that this might be due to acceleration away from Earth and a possible expanding universe. Before he could reflect on other possible explanations, a radio interview stumbled onto the phrase "Big Bang" and a run-away train left the station. Dr Hubble was uncomfortable with both the concept and the catchy nick-name, but he had a 'conflict of interest' on this issue. In a Times magazine interview, on Dec 14, 1936, titled "Science: Shift on Shift", Dr. Hubble made his opposition clear. One reason that he was not more forceful was because he was begging the government for funding of the Mount Palomar telescope." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 1 Aug 2010 05:40 More clues to the question "Why is science not part of culture?": http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articles/archive/2007-06-07--open-letter-aqa.html "I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn't cover anything I recognize as physics. Over the past year the UK Department for Education and the AQA board changed the subject. They took the physics out of physics and replaced it with... something else, something nebulous and ill defined. I worry about this change. I worry about my pupils, I worry about the state of science education in this country, and I worry about the future physics teachers - if there will be any. (...) UPDATE 2009: After much frustration I'm leaving teaching England in physics. I've started a side business in time management and am taking a break from the profession." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/22/highereducation.education Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure." L. McGlashan, Chemical thermodynamics, Academic Press, London (1979), pp. 72-73: "For an infinitesimal change in the state of a phase alpha we write dU = T dS - p dV + SUM mu_B dn_B (1) We regard equation (1) as an axiom and call it the fundamental equation for a change of the state of a phase alpha. It is one half of the second law of thermodynamics. We do not ask where it comes from. Indeed we do not admit the existence of any more fundamental relations from which it might have been derived. Nor shall we here enquire into the history of its formulation, though that is a subject of great interest to the historian of science. It is a starting point ; it must be learnt by heart." http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.pdf Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html "The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html "Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no sense." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes. (...) I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses. (...) Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion." http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616 "Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of "Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them. Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: CPA AFFILIATE NETWORKS AWESOME EARNINGS FROM YOUR HOME Next: solutions manual |