Physics is not the art of measurement. Physics is the science of looking at the world in mathematical terms.
Yeah some measurements require a good understanding of physics. This does not change physics into the art of measurement. Many things which are not physics might in rare circumstances require some understanding of physics – this does not make them physics. (And yes I can think of examples where measurements might be needed and made in religion) Also many measurements require no understanding of physics at all. So making measurements does not make it physics. SO… physics is NOT the art of measurement. Physics is the science of looking at the world in mathematical terms, in other words, trying to understand the world by the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities in the most general way (because other sciences have imitated physics to some degree in seeking mathematical relationships between quantities it has measured).
Adam, I cut some slack because you represent a minority viewpoint on this forum, and that can be difficult to do. But Wow. What gives you the prerogative to declare that scientists generally are mechanically inept? And even if that assertion was not ridiculous, does it follow that their not having insight into your specialty means that you possess more insight into theirs?
You are also entering the world of teaching, which can take many forms and approaches. You need a big toolkit. Additionally, in the world outside the classroom, your work requires savvy, on-the-fly assessments of people’s thinking skills, of their basic background knowledge, and also of whom they are inclined to trust. That last one can be an insurmountable wall, or one that will only open a slit after much trust-building.
I know and love a great many people with more science in their educations than I have, who simply do not, will not trust consensus/secular/real science. I’ll refrain from the stories. You know enough of them already.
Two major contributors that I can identify and see working largely together are YEC/ID/Anti-evolutionary currents in churches here (in the US) and “conservative” media sources that build distrust of science, because it tells them the policies they want to benefit from are dangerous, harmful, bad, etc. This brings you back to psychology and sociology.
I know exactly what you mean. And to be honest I can understand where people like that are coming from. It’s not hard to view the scientific community and the peer review process as being under the influence of a certain political orthodoxy, after all publishers of scientific journals have HR departments too, and it doesn’t take much of a conspiracy theorist to see those HR departments having at least some influence over what does or does not get published.
The problem though is that such a view can only go so far before it becomes unreasonable. Some scientific theories have more than just the peer review process behind them; they also have practical applications, or a myriad of other scientific theories that depend on them. Additionally, if you’re going to contest scientific findings on those grounds, you still need to make sure that your challenge is mathematically coherent and logically consistent, and when specific points are raised then those specific points are addressed. What bugs me is seeing bad arguments, from people with impressive scientific credentials, that fall apart when you apply some basic GCSE maths or a quick Google search.
How do we get the knowledge we have? Mostly, someone tells it to us. There is no fundamental difference between scientists and non-scientists in this.
What do we believe? We tend to accept the information that comes from a trusted source and fits to our current worldview. In most cases, we do not even seriously think about the reliability of the information, if it seems to fit to the existing framework within our head and a trusted source tells it, we just adopt it. I do not see a major difference between scientists and non-scientists in this.
A big difference comes in who do we trust? A scientist tends to trust what respected scientists tell, especially if the information is written in a peer-reviewed publication. A conspiracy-oriented person probably has other sources of trust. There are persons who share elements of both sides as there are conspiracy-oriented persons even among scientists.
For protestant Christians, Bible is the most trusted source and trusted Christians are another influential source. If a trusted Christian, possibly a pastor or preacher, tells how the biblical scriptures should be interpreted, it is quite likely that many adopt this teaching, especially if the teaching fits to the previous teachings. None of us have perfect knowledge, which means that any trusted human will occasionally tell something that is not true. If there is trust, the false bits are swallowed with the other information.
There are also other reasons but many cases can be explained with this simple rationale.
Mathematics is not considered a science. A mathematical approach will not solve all problems. I fixed a pair of tree loppers with a spanner not a ruler. The problem was not mathematical it was mechanical.
It would seem that Physics is not so easily explained away. Like many thing it is easier to demonstrate or use than define.
In an honest debate on any subject, parties do not “expect others to understand”. Such is a very intolerant and arrogant statement. If one party understand the science behind an idea or statement or reasoning, the same party should be able to explain in a clear manner and simple terms, IF … in fact he himself actually understand the principle in question.
Everyone knows that Machu Picchu was built by aliens using lasers, that the world is 6000 years old and that the Lord will return in the year 2028. All facts.
Make your case using the facts you have at hand, knowing that you are only borrowing this so called facts from someone else, who sold you on them with more or less data to back it up.
All is relative including all your so called facts.
Actually, James, I was thinking about quite different things, which will demonstrate a way in which think differently by training, inclination and experience. Maybe the stories would have helped.
Some areas I see people with more science training than me forgetting to employ just critical thinking skills or failing to seek accurate information include these very popular trendsm
“All natural” particularly in relationship to medical therapies
“Alternative” medicine (whatever that means)
Homeopathy
Climate change doubt
There is almost a sense of morality governing these leanings.
There’s more but it’s not coming to mind.
Nearly no lay person is looking at real scientific work. They are relying on whatever “reporting” and advertising they trust, which often have no interest in accuracy.
I recently pushed one too many buttons, when I lamented to a loved one (with actual college chemistry and organic chem in her background) that I wished someone would fund rigorous testing on homeopathic stuff (which she uses without knowing about the unfounded philosophy behind it and demonstrating no willingness to look into it) so the FDA would be obliged to ban it or label it. That part of the conversation ended with her comment, “I know how the scientific method works!”
I held my tongue.
I don’t like the word “everyone”. IMO, it glosses over the range of possible “somes”, eg. “some can’t even with guidance or examples”, “some can with guidance or examples”, and “some know or figure stuff out without guidance or previous examples”. Ranges vary, but a complete range begins with “0” (none) and proceed to “Everyone/All”.
Second, “should be able to understand at this level” assumes something that is not always true: i.e. that an explanation is sufficient to enlighten someone. The truth is, there are some whom even the most patient and thorough explanation does not make a dent in their understanding.
Fpr example: I had a brother- and sister-in-law who had a daughter. The daughter obtained a university education and completed all course requirements for a teaching credential, however she was unable to pass the California Basic Skills Test which is required for a “clear” teaching credential. Without the credential she could only get a job in a private school which would hire her. The pay was lower, and the workload was demanding.
The part of the CBST that she was unable to pass was the Maths portion. Every time she took the test, she failed to get the minimum score. I discovered her failure from her disgruntled father, and offered to tutor her; after all the Math’s portion was nothing more than 7tu grade level stuff: rudimentary.
I met wiith her weekly, and gave her assignments and checked her work. She was committed to mastering the concepts that I focused on and she certainly was not a slacker. She took the test once more, and I encouraged her not to be despondent if she did not pass, we could focus later on the portions that she failed. She failed the test, BUT achieved the hiichest failing score that she ever had. We continued our weekly meetings and she continued working problems. She took the test again, and passed it with the minimum score necessary. But that didn’t matter, she had passed it and received her teaching credential. Eventially, she went on to get a Master’s Degree and was “rolling in the money”.
Inspired by her success, she asked if I would tutor her mother who was in the same situation that she had been in: all the courses completed, but failed the CBST. I agreed to do what I could. She eventually gave up trying. Her problem? She just could not get past the essential requirement, which is becoming comfortable and adept in carrying out mathematical operations on “letters” that stand in the place of variables. She could add and subtract numbers, multiply and divide numbers slower, but throw in a letter, and she would go “brain-dead” from the shock.
In other words: Some can’t. no matter who tries to help.
Apart from the “letter vs. number” challenge in my last post, I’d say “the most elementary basics” some, if not most, folks need to be able to understand are:
Prince (now King) Charles was known for promoting homeopathy. Linus Pauling is another example of someone who should know better, but promoted Vitamin C as a miracle cure. The Covid pandemic brought so-called “experts” who should know better–usually those who were not trained in virology, epidemiology, etc, but highly knowledgeable elsewhere–who condemned the vaccine and promoted ivermectin and all sorts of other options.
I forgot to include vaccination rejection in my list. Same people. Same person whose buttons I pushed and knows better will only have her daughters receive the legally required ones, and wrote a theologically dubious covid vaccine religious exemption letter for her daughter, when she went to college. The daughter texted me about her desire to get the covid shots. That situation took all my meager diplomacy skills.
I’m sorry. I wanted to say it sounds like you were wise. I have had to do the same thing. Someone I talked to once reminded me the right answer is a positive one–about vaccines, for example–rather than an opposing argument. I plan on shopping for pro-vaccine posters for my office walls, for patients to read (eg, how many lives each has saved). However, I think you were wise to be quiet, as you were. I have to do that more.
Wow, good for you! I remember how CS Lewis, who was brilliant in other ways, said he could not make a column of 3 numbers add up the same way twice. Another friend in 8th grade could not focus enough to ace a written test, but at that tender age was a genius with cars–could take one apart and put it back together. Patience often helps a lot, but you’re right–many have difficulty with certain concepts. I wonder if that gives insight into why some accept some things better than others. I thought a few years ago, a Harvard study examined how some people accept religious and personal agency as explanations better than others, who tended to be more naturalistic. It’s a good example of why to be patient with each other. Thanks.
Not in the modern sense of the word “science” no, but only in the more classical use of the word “science” which named theology as queen of the sciences. But that is not what scientists mean by “science” in modern times because it does not match with what we understand as the scientific methodology.
Agreed. This is in fact the essence of the first of the reasons I give for belief (that reality is more than what is described by science).
Physics is not engineering. Physics is not life. Physics is the science of looking at the world in mathematical terms. Science is not life. There is a fundamental divide between science and life because science is based on objective observation and life requires subjective participation.
Your examples suggest what you mean is… physical life is not so easily explained away as the science of looking at the world in mathematical terms.
It probably depends on their socioeconomic status, urban vs suburban, whether they were ELL and how important education was to their parents. People also forget what they don’t use or didn’t ever really care about. So whether they found the subject or their teacher fun or boring will also play a role. That makes this question so hard to answer.
I know in some of our middle schools they haven’t even had science teachers in 7th and 8th grade the last 3-4 years. Or their teacher gets maternity leave for a few months or transfers to a higher paying district etc. Students can get to high school without ever seeing any real science.
I know it’s a novelty but every year I ask seniors (yes, 12th graders) how long it takes the earth to move around the sun once and I get quite a few blank stares. I also get another group that isn’t sure if it’s a day or a year but they know it’s one or the other. These are smart kids as well.
Students also suffer because some districts don’t let good science teachers science. They pay for terrible curriculums that are cookie cutter, generic and all follow the same format for every lesson. Writing an objective on the board and referring back to it 6 times is apparently the proper way to teach The curriculums require change and fixing for years and by the time they are working, they decide we need a new curriculum again. They also give us a curriculum with lessons and still expect lesson plans. Shows you how much faith they have in their own stuff…
And to add to your list: they should know the continents were once together. They usually learn that at some point.
I am not sure we need people to understand science. In the area I am most interested in, the tension between science and the Biblical events. In this case it is important to appreciate how scientific evidence or fields of study like archeology, geology, paleontology etc, that use science reflect on the Bible particularly Genesis 1-11. Unfortunately many churches and people consider science the enemy of the Bible. It only appears that way to them becasue they do not know or they do not understand that science or the fields of study is evidence when it comes to Genesis events.
It is time we get away from scientism that alienates people who are into scripture and at the same time have scientists who are believers make the case for science realative to scripture in a respectful manner.
There will be the risk that evidence goes against traditional interpretation but reinterpretation without changing scripture is possible.
Above all, I have found that evidence that informs on scripture does not adversely affect Christian theology that Adam brought sin into the world and Jesus redeemed us of it.
The curriculums require change and fixing for years and by the time they are working, they decide we need a new curriculum again. They also give us a curriculum with lessons and still expect lesson plans. Shows you how much faith they have in their own stuff…