Belief and knowledge—a plea about language

[ZapperZ]

I'm putting this essay in this forum because as budding scientists, academicians, or even already established professionals, this issue has been a constant concern to me. I've seen way too many people misinterpret the writings of science, and made no effort in trying to understand the things they read.

If you've been here long enough, you would inevitably have read some of my complaints that people misuse words and phrases in science. The word "theory" is a prime example, that people often denigrate something as "oh, that is just a theory, not a fact". It is one of the misconception in physics that http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/10/imagination-without-knowledge-is_16.html" , especially in regards to the recent battle between evolution and creationism.

If you just have ONE essay to read, this would be http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March07/Quinn/Quinn.html" . Helen Quinn, who was a past president of the APS, has written almost exactly what I've been trying to get across all these years. I am so greatful and relieved that now, I have a very convenient link to refer to each time someone makes the same misunderstanding about not only words and phrases in physics, but also how physics works.

However, at the same time, as professionals and scientists, we need to be aware of what and how we communicate about our ideas and profession. The general public do not have the same "inside information" that we do, and often understands what we say differently than what we intend. We continue to use phrases such as 'wave-particle' duality simply to illustrate things in ways that the public would understand, but we know that in QM, there is no such "duality" of the description. We don't switch gears when a quantum system exhibits wave-like or particle-like behavior. So our continual use of such phrase propages the wrong impression that even within the description we use, such duality exists.

Please, please read this article. You WILL benefit from it no matter if you're a scientist, engineer, or just a layperson interested in science.

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

The English language is heavily flawed. Its hard to believe its considered the 'language of knowledge'.

 

[ZapperZ]

The English language is heavily flawed. Its hard to believe its considered the 'language of knowledge'.

No, it's a language of communication that happens to be shared by a lot of people. If you look at other languages, you'll find other flaws. I was told in German, "velocity" and "speed" share the same word. Think of the confusion.

It is why without mathematics being the language of physics, we would be doomed. It also means that when one doesn't understand the mathematics, then one only has a superficial knowledge of physics.

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

IF everybody had a masters in mathmatical physics, explaining new things wouls be simple, but you can't go walk down the street and explain how you want your coffee to the person at the diner using math. we use language. saying you would 'prefer it creamy but with a small kick in it,' there are a billlion directions to go in

 

[ZapperZ]

IF everybody had a masters in mathmatical physics, explaining new things wouls be simple, but you can't go walk down the street and explain how you want your coffee to the person at the diner using math. we use language. saying you would 'prefer it creamy but with a small kick in it,' there are a billlion directions to go in

.. and thus, that article!

It requires the awareness on BOTH sides. Scientists need to be careful of what they say as far as being aware of how things can easily be misinterpreted by the general public. The general public must also be aware that the words and phrases being used often do not have the same pedestrian meaning when used in the science context.

It is why I said that everyone should read that article. Being aware of the possibility of such misinterpretation is the first step in trying to reduce it.

Zz.

 

[berkeman]

Thanks for the article, Zz. Good stuff.

What do we mean by "scientists believe that . . ."? Typically it is something like "Most scientists agree that the preponderance of the evidence favors the interpretation that . . ., and furthermore, there is no evidence that directly contradicts that interpretation." Clumsy language perhaps, but it would behoove us to say something like it more often. If we need a shorthand version, we can replace it by "Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that . . .." Sometimes we should just say "We know that . . .." In other words, we need to articulate more precisely the state of our knowledge—its authority or uncertainty.

 

[mathwonk]

Thanks Zapper. I read Dr Quinn's essay with interest, and many questions.
I think she has done a service by it.

I think we also need to do more than begin using words like "I know" as opposed to "I believe".

It seems to me we need to do more to explain why we believe certain things, why we feel strongly that we "know" some things.

As to explaining where this certainty comes from, her article suggested to me at least, that one of her sources of this certainty is an awareness of many successes the various theories have made possible.

Hence I suggest we need to list a few of those successes when making our arguments, and link them to the corresponding theories or models.

She implied also the persuasive power of the consistency and coherence of many separate but interconnected theories. To strengthen that argument one needs to explain those consistencies to some extent.

I.e. to my mind, the argument for persuasivenes can only be made by explaining some of the physical data behind the faith of the scientist in these statements.

I think this is uncommon in teaching. In fact I cannot recall in my own textbook reading, many instances of an author clarifying for me the range of validity of the theories being explained, nor their documentation.The most moving and enlightening exoerience I can recall in physics writing, was reading the original account of the Michelson Morley experiment.

As a young student, I was struck by the accuracy of description, the honesty of the statements, the lack of vague theorizing that occupied the textbooks I had read.

Perhaps wrongly, I came away with a sense of how questionable are the statements that I had read in textbooks, how much less certainty they convey than do mathematical proofs.

Now I begin to see behind Dr Quinn's writings, the depth of knowledge she has that I do not, that convince her of the extremely reliable, almost certain validity of a family of models that have become standard.

But to say that a given model is now standard among physicists, and is very unlikely to ever be discarded, needs some bolstering for me. Her article is the first to convey to me the need for a broad acquaintance with physics, in order to grasp the real foundation for strong belief in its precepts.

Ignorant people, even professional people like myself, ignorant of physics, will be slow to accept the validity of statements which are standardly accepted by physicists, unless we know to some degree their reasons for belieiving them.

From what I gleaned out of the article above, the reasons are primarily a long string of successes, but ones which were not much listed for the ignorant. Of course she was writing for physicists. Nonetheless her statement made me picture a rocket ship successully docking in space as a darn good success.

Another reason mentioned there, was an awareness that certain theories have meshed well with many other theiories and facts, and have had both predictive and explanatory power.

To appreciate these I think one needs some education in physics, but it helped me that she at least made this remark. Still a sceptical person like myself continues to want the data, in order to gauge for myself how well these various theories do in fact mesh, predict, and explain.

Mathematicians are somewhat surprized by the amount of argumentation that goes on among physicists, when matehmaticians almost never argue about their results. By our standards, physics may seem highly speculative and apparently subject to change.

And yet we admire the ability of physicists to function in an atmosphere of less than total certainty. This is why physics is often the source of problems, which we are not imaginative enough to generate.

Now I am beginning to see that physicists speculate essentially when mathematicians do, about the unknown. There is similarly a large body of accepted material in both fields, if for different reasons.

This essay makes an important contribution to communication, and I enjoyed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Communication sometimes seems the hardest thing we try to do.

 

[mathwonk]

it has dawned on me that physics must be very relevant to the treatment of disease, such as radiation treatments for cancer, and many members of the public should be open to such an argument in favor of research.

 

[verty]

I don't see how one can say that one knows there are 11 (or is it 10?) dimensions, or knows that there are virtual particles or whatever. Perhaps one knew that neutrinos were massless, but now knows they aren't. If you start talking as though you know, it can backfire when your opinion changes.

I'm reminded of an advert which was on when I was young, an advert for washing powder. One 'housewife' in the advert said of the washing powder: "I'll never use another, how can one improve on perfection?". Then a few months later a new microparticle version was released, and there she was saying "well, I used to use <productX>, so I shall certainly use <productX^2>".

Perhaps there is a subset of theory for which one can confidently say that one knows it is true, but I think one should be watchful not to overstate the case for political reasons.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't see how one can say that one knows there are 11 (or is it 10?) dimensions, or knows that there are virtual particles or whatever. Perhaps one knew that neutrinos were massless, but now knows they aren't. If you start talking as though you know, it can backfire when your opinion changes.

Did you miss this passage from Quinn's essay?

Any good scientist has a conscious range of knowing, from established fact to hunch. We continually reevaluate the status of ideas along that continuum. We serve science poorly when we either over- or underclaim the confidence with which we know something. One of the things that makes us scientists is our intricate examination of knowledge—our understanding of what we know, of how we know it, of what evidence supports it, and of the limits of that evidence. This conscious continuum of knowledge certainty is poorly understood by most listeners, but is taken for granted when we converse amongst ourselves.

Now, if you can find me someone who actually claimed to know about all of these dimensions...

And the fact that we continue to study the properties of neutrinos until we found its oscillation means that while we have certain definite properties about it, there are others that we don't know about or don't know enough! The same can be said about everything ranging from the electrons in your conductors to the magnet that you play with as a kid. There ARE things that we DO know, and know extremely well. And there are things that we do not know that well, and often these two are on the same object!

Zz.

 

[interested_learner]

Natural language is inherently ambiguous. Although some natural languages (such as Arabic) are worse than others (say Spanish or Greek). That is why we have formal languages such as mathematics. All science and engineering need to be described in such a formal manner inorder to remove the inherent ambiguities. It is a hard thing for many people to accept this since formal languages tend to be difficult to learn and to understand, but we have no choice since otherwise the ambiguities in natural language would quickly eat us alive. I frankly find most mathless science writing hard to follow. Give me a good equation, that is worth 1000 words in English.

The problem in communications we have is that average person doesn't have access to the equations so they have to try to muck along with the natural language. Unfortunately, Science is described by the math and not the natural language for the reasons I mentioned above. This means that we are talking in a strange language that most people don't understand. A language whose beauty and power is lost on the average person .

Also keep in mind that some people have political agendas when talking about science and will try to pick at the inherent ambiguities in natural language (hence the talk about something being "Only a Theory"). Those people tend to be impossible to talk with anyway since their minds are already made up and are interested only in twisting your words.

 

[ZapperZ]

BTW, this is the very reason why I always warn people to be very careful when reading pop-science books. Some are good because they choose their words very carefully, and are aware of this very problem of misinterpretation (it will still happen because that can't be helped). However, other books are just simply careless or even outright irresponsible, especially when the books tend to deal more in the metaphysical aspect (don't get me started).

If people can get it through their heads that the words and phrases COULD have a different connotation when used in Science, then stupid arguments such as "Evolution is only a theory" would never happen. Yet, I'll bet you dinner at my favorite Japanese restaurant that you will continue to see such an argument used the next time evolution is challenged in our schools, or even on here.

On a related note, the fact that mathematics is the starting point of the description of quantum mechanics is the reason why http://www.physicspost.com/science-article-208.html" that made quantum mechanics so difficult to understand for layperson. Without the mathematics, you end up having to literally TELL people various QM "weirdness" without any connection to what people have already understood and can relate to. To me, this is the source of crackpottery, because people seems to think they can make up anything they wish since QM appears to be doing the same thing. The underlying mathematical formalism is hidden to them.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm resurrecting this thread because of two different issues.

1. The constant bickering over the idea that there is an element of "faith" in science that is being discussed in the Philosophy sub-forum, and

2. The http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/1196329040129170.xml&coll=2" after his careless remarks made during a New Scientist interview.

Even one of the most prominent physicist can make such a mistake if he or she is careless with his choice of words and description. He should have paid attention to Helen Quinn's essay. I strongly, STRONGLY recommend those who haven't read it to do so.

It is also why I don't read New Scientist.

Zz.

 

[JasonRox]

No, it's a language of communication that happens to be shared by a lot of people. If you look at other languages, you'll find other flaws. I was told in German, "velocity" and "speed" share the same word. Think of the confusion.

It is why without mathematics being the language of physics, we would be doomed. It also means that when one doesn't understand the mathematics, then one only has a superficial knowledge of physics.

Zz.

With french, we wouldn't have that problem.

 

[JasonRox]

I really liked the essay!

 

[AsianSensationK]

Nice article.

I wonder if it's just these sorts of words "belief," "knowledge" and "theory" that aren't well understood. I think that you could also say that few people fail to understand the word "faith."

 

[Astronuc]

I wonder if it's just these sorts of words "belief," "knowledge" and "theory" that aren't well understood. I think that you could also say that few people fail to understand the word "faith."

I think it's a matter of semantics. One persons understanding of a word will differ than anothers depending upon education and experience. As Quinn points out:

Words shift their meaning; each community develops its own usage. That change in meaning leads to miscommunication.

The communities being scientific and non-scientific. The differences in meaning lead to misunderstanding as well as miscommunication.

 

[Astronuc]

The pie-in-the-face on Lawrence Krauss after his careless remarks made during a New Scientist interview.

I'd like to know what Krauss actually said, as opposed to what was reported. I've been misquoted and misinterpreted in the media, such that what I said and what was reported were completely different.

I agree with Quinn that we have to be careful about how we say things in the public domain.

It's bad enough that there are unintentional misunderstandings, but it's much worse that there are folks who will deliberately or recklessly misinform the public.

 

[symbolipoint]

An example of serious misunderstandings occurred a few years ago in linguistic discussions about Ebonics because of how different fields use words such as "genetic" and "biological". The particular word, "genetic", means something in linguistics different than what it means in Biology/Molecular Biology. Various many educators and social leaders and other officials were not aware of this difference in meanings between the two fields and interpreted the discussion as strongly racist - absolutely not intended in the linguistic discussion.

 

[HungryChemist]

If I become a president of USA, I will make symbolic logic be the required courses through out the entire 12-k schools. I say this because I personally believe that this is what hinders my failure to defend evolution theory to my beloved Christian roommate. A good example of such kind would be the different usage of 'OR'.

Correct usage of well defined words + agreement in logical system and its usage = effective communication

I found above as everyday problem.

 

[Poop-Loops]

No, it's a language of communication that happens to be shared by a lot of people. If you look at other languages, you'll find other flaws. I was told in German, "velocity" and "speed" share the same word. Think of the confusion.

It is why without mathematics being the language of physics, we would be doomed. It also means that when one doesn't understand the mathematics, then one only has a superficial knowledge of physics.

Zz.

Like math is any different. Is Lambda wavelength or eigenvalue? Do you mean "m" as in "mass" or "m" as in "quantum number 'm' "? Etc.

It all comes down to context, like in any other language.

 

[ZapperZ]

Like math is any different. Is Lambda wavelength or eigenvalue? Do you mean "m" as in "mass" or "m" as in "quantum number 'm' "? Etc.

It all comes down to context, like in any other language.

Er... that's is entirely different!

If I give you some mathematical expression, any reasonable person would need to know what those symbols mean. Many people even simply glaze over mathematical expressions without devoting to what they mean. However, the same person would have a completely different interpretation of words and phrases because many of these words are not something they've never heard before. So when you tell them something, they will interpret it via what they already are familiar with. Not many are familiar with a second order differential equation, for example.

So yes, it is different than simply assigning different physical quantity to the same symbol. I don't see that kind of "miscommunication" happening very often, unlike the misinterpretation of the usage of the word "theory".

Zz.

 

[Asphodel]

I get what you mean, in that it's easy for someone to think they understand the content of the communication, while interpreting it very differently than the intent, indeed for a message to have two completely different and opposing interpretations.

 

[vanesch]

I read the article by Quinn. Interesting!
However, I think that the main problem doesn't lie with scientists being reckless with words (I agree it often IS a problem, especially when they want hype) ; rather, the main problem is that the public should have a minimal science education. One shouldn't be able to leave high school successfully without knowing how science works (instead of just having learned some basic and mostly boring and useless facts of science).

 

[Poop-Loops]

Er... that's is entirely different!

If I give you some mathematical expression, any reasonable person would need to know what those symbols mean. Many people even simply glaze over mathematical expressions without devoting to what they mean. However, the same person would have a completely different interpretation of words and phrases because many of these words are not something they've never heard before. So when you tell them something, they will interpret it via what they already are familiar with. Not many are familiar with a second order differential equation, for example.

True. At least people who use math have enough smarts to know to ask what symbol defines what before proceeding (likely due to having failed tests because of that in the past...).

So yes, it is different than simply assigning different physical quantity to the same symbol. I don't see that kind of "miscommunication" happening very often, unlike the misinterpretation of the usage of the word "theory".

Zz.

Yeah, but when we take your example of German velocity being the same word as speed, it becomes more familiar. Of course, that's a lot more dangerous (?) than making lambda both eigenvalue and wavelength, since the latter aren't nearly as related.

Still, when I look at a lot of math, I just think we should start over. A lot of the garbage arises from convention and just not knowing any better at the time and sticking with the notation.

Don't worry, we can keep pretty notation like the integral sign, to impress the laypeople. :)

 

[Asphodel]

German velocity being the same word as speed

Same for most in English too, until you take high school or freshman mechanics. Then you get turned around again when you learn Special Relativity.

Still, when I look at a lot of math, I just think we should start over. A lot of the garbage arises from convention and just not knowing any better at the time and sticking with the notation.

Can we make electrons positive while we're at it? But definitely do something about the notation for negative numbers. Everybody screws that up.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Yeah, it's stuff like that. Normalization factors, charge flow, the whole sub-atomic particle vernacular (Top and charm flavors? WTF?), etc.

 

[Asphodel]

Go go gadget quantum chromodynamics!

Red, Green, and Blue quarks? The hell?! Sometimes I think physicists come up with this stuff just to see who can make up the weirdest-sounding theory to see which of their grad students can keep a straight face in seminars.

 

[Poop-Loops]

The problem is that there's just so much stuff in math and physics (and the other sciences as well, but let them go to their own message board :p ) that it's hard to keep simple.

It's really more of a fault with the human mind than the science and math. The latter is what it is, but there are probably "better" minds than the human mind. I'm thinking aliens or future computers or something.

 

[Asphodel]

The problem is that there's just so much stuff in math and physics

Math runs into the "not enough letters" problem relatively quickly. Even with Greek symbols added. Physics comes in on top of that...either we go like medicine and biology with all sorts of Latinate lingo to memorize, or we repurpose existing words...I guess the way we do things is more comfortable. More fun to make fun of, at least.

The latter is what it is, but there are probably "better" minds than the human mind. I'm thinking aliens or future computers or something.

Well, there's always human genetic engineering.

That's not going to happen to a degree relevant to this problem for a long time. Damn Nazis went overboard on the human experiments, and not just them. Our happy fun time trying to sterilize "undesirables" didn't end that long ago. Medical science rather outstripped ethics for a period, and medical ethics still needs lots of work. Psychiatry, for example, is still in some need of serious reform with all the Ritalin and antidepressants being handed out like Pez candy. So it's a touchy subject. Very touchy.

Even UW's test to try and improve emergency care (which I believe involved using a very minor tweak to CPR techniques?) came under pretty heavy fire - and that's one where the "experimental" method pretty clearly had a better chance to save the patient's life. I figure we've got a much better chance at it than monkeys or pocket calculators if we don't throw it away or wipe ourselves out. Some parts of the human body are physics-limited, and it's hard to think there's not a limit at some point - but a decent portion of the population is over two standard deviations more "intelligent" than average, so we can at least hope to move the average up to that mark. If we're willing to do the research. Consciousness and intellect are such ambiguous hard-to-quantify things to start with, that it can't be easy research either.

 

[rewebster]

Yes--wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone 'knew' what every word that everyone ever said or wrote, so that there wouldn't be any confusion---but that's no the way the world has ever been.

Even in your first post, you used abbreviations/contractions in statement (I'm, I've, etc.). Someone, probably a long time ago (in a far away galaxy) first used the phrase, "wave-particle duality" as a shortened term (a contracted form) for the actual and correct meaning or scientific terminology for the longer phrase.

Blaming anyone who now uses it cannot, and should not, be 'their' fault for using it now. It has become a part of culture.

It sounds as if just because it written some place in 'one' of the posts somewhere on the PF of the over one and a half million posts, or even here, that saying "wave-particle duality", for example, is wrong, that everyone posting anytime now or in the future should know better. I don't think it will ever work that way.

Z, even it scientific discussions by scientists, its probably wrong, but it is still used. Just do a Google search---it seems to be even in quite a few abstracts, articles, etc.

 

[rewebster]

In the last paragraph, the line should read, "...even in scientific discussions..."


For some reason, there is no 'edit' button to change the typo

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Goodness what tripe!

Quantum mechanics is a model, not a fact. It is useful and considered valid because it makes very accurate predictions, especially in the form of QED. Yet how many physicists would consider QED to be a true absolute fact?

I would venture to say that QED is the best that science has to offer in terms of precision validation of a scientific model.

Some "laws" might be more certain, but at some point, it they become tautologies (true by definition). For example, conservation of energy is now true by definition because any new quantity that is supposedly a new form of energy would only be considered to truly be energy if it you can add it to the already described kinds of energy and have a conserved quantity.

Likewise, cell theory was once a valid expression of many empirical observations that all known living things are composed of cells. It is morphing into a tautology because biologists are reluctant to classify things as "living" if they are not made of cells.

I guess my point is that the general public should be engaged and educated rather than given the pablum of oversimplified platitudes. If "theory" is the right word to use among scientists then it is OK for the general public also. Let us strive to bring them up to a more complete level of understanding.

Michael Courtney