You have indicated that the identification of the law and explanation parts of our knowledge of a phenomenon is not always obvious . In my experience, it takes practice, even with the most obvious cases. Newton's equation of gravitational force is the law. It provides no clue as to why. The explanation will depend on which grade you are learning about it, all the way from simply that gravity produces an attractive force between masses and the concept of gravitons. But for many topics, they are so combined in our minds, that parsing them takes some serious thought.
I have been thinking that a series of exercises in making this distinction might be the best way to introduce philosophical concepts to science students.
Right. And can you blame us? In our learning, there has been no basis for distinguishing what parts of what we're being taught is for sure and what is the part we made up to explain it. So, we don't know what to let go of in the face of contrary data.
Ah, and that suggests that in our teaching, we should do our best to provide the basis for distinguishing what parts of what we're teaching is for sure and what is the part we made up to explain it. Not always obvious in every topic we teach, but important to provide students examples so they can develop their ability to distinguish, and perhaps know what to let go of in the face of contrary data.
I often think of the famous Sherlock Holmes quote in AC Doyle's first novel, A Study in Scarlet - "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Pathological science can result from throwing out the data one doesn't understand or that doesn't fit one's theories...
Ah, and that suggests that in our teaching, we should do our best to provide the basis for distinguishing what parts of what we're teaching is for sure and what is the part we made up to explain it. Not always obvious in every topic we teach, but important to provide students examples so they can develop their ability to distinguish, and perhaps know what to let go of in the face of contrary data.
I often think of the famous Sherlock Holmes quote in AC Doyle's first novel, A Study in Scarlet - "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Pathological science can result from throwing out the data one doesn't understand or that doesn't fit one's theories...
Your post here nicely reflects how experts may deny experimental evidence that doesn't fit their models; perhaps their models even become their folklore. And that can stand in the way of innovation and progress. And it illustrates the value of someone from outside the field looking in, and perhaps observing things that weren't obvious to the experts who embraced their models... And offering new models that ultimately (hopefully) become accepted...
This really gets to the heart of how explanations have such power: as you say, to clarify or add insight to or stimulate the discovery of new laws, and also at times to impede progress when it isn't yet understood why methods aren't yielding expected results. This seems like one of the most important things for people to understand about scientific process and what we do with "troublesome" data.
I came upon your blog today, and when I read through the titles of each post, I said to myself, each law is limited by the conditions under which it was established. I studied psychology, statistics and research design---not so much the physical or biological sciences, but stumbled into the realm of bioelectromagnetics over two decades ago, and have been following developments in that field as a lay person ever since. Early on, I read how 4.0W/kg came to represent the "threshold of harm" for wireless radiation (as in cellphones, wifi, etc.)---based on the exposure threshold at which a few animals trained to press a bar for food stopped performing the task, though hungry (circa 1980, DeLorge), and the degrees to which their body temperature had risen. The animals were exposed for only a few minutes (not repeatedly for hours, days, years, decades). FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits for RF were set accordingly, with purportedly "50-fold safety margins", though occupational limits allowed only a "10-fold safety margin." Based on the post-WWll world, that was as close as they could get to any kind of consistent basis for a standard---known as the thermal paradigm, oft quoted as "law". Yet, there were unexplained exceptions of seeming harm at much lower exposure levels even then that were explained away, and ignored.
The thermal threshold of harm became standard functioning. It allowed a good bit of latitude for industry and military to develop their technologies. But as research techniques were refined and equipment improved, more and more the stubborn biological effects showed up at lower and lower exposure levels, to the point where now, most of the biological studies on RF and EMF show them. Some effects, like oxidative stress and formation of free radicals show up in 90% (about 550 studies) of all the studies focused on those effects. But much of the science world is stuck back at DeLorge, absolutely certain that low intensity bioeffects are impossible. Of course, that stuck view is very beneficial to some parties, and there's a lot of spinning of information that gets out. It's been the most amazing thing to watch, and so disheartening re the world of science. How does one dislodge an entrenched notion like that, one that is constantly being fortified? Some interesting reads---Nicholas Steneck's (U.Michigan) 1984 book, "The Microwave Debate", a "surprisingly objective foray into the conflicts of technology, science, and values surrounding the health effects of MW exposure" back in the early days. Also, any of several recent public-access articles by Henry Lai, Blake Levitt (and sometimes Al Manville) (2022 and 2023) which discuss the history and scope of NIR standards and effects on humans, wildlife and plants.
I hope you will also discuss such influences on science.
Rick,
You have indicated that the identification of the law and explanation parts of our knowledge of a phenomenon is not always obvious . In my experience, it takes practice, even with the most obvious cases. Newton's equation of gravitational force is the law. It provides no clue as to why. The explanation will depend on which grade you are learning about it, all the way from simply that gravity produces an attractive force between masses and the concept of gravitons. But for many topics, they are so combined in our minds, that parsing them takes some serious thought.
I have been thinking that a series of exercises in making this distinction might be the best way to introduce philosophical concepts to science students.
Right. And can you blame us? In our learning, there has been no basis for distinguishing what parts of what we're being taught is for sure and what is the part we made up to explain it. So, we don't know what to let go of in the face of contrary data.
Ah, and that suggests that in our teaching, we should do our best to provide the basis for distinguishing what parts of what we're teaching is for sure and what is the part we made up to explain it. Not always obvious in every topic we teach, but important to provide students examples so they can develop their ability to distinguish, and perhaps know what to let go of in the face of contrary data.
I often think of the famous Sherlock Holmes quote in AC Doyle's first novel, A Study in Scarlet - "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Pathological science can result from throwing out the data one doesn't understand or that doesn't fit one's theories...
Ah, and that suggests that in our teaching, we should do our best to provide the basis for distinguishing what parts of what we're teaching is for sure and what is the part we made up to explain it. Not always obvious in every topic we teach, but important to provide students examples so they can develop their ability to distinguish, and perhaps know what to let go of in the face of contrary data.
I often think of the famous Sherlock Holmes quote in AC Doyle's first novel, A Study in Scarlet - "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Pathological science can result from throwing out the data one doesn't understand or that doesn't fit one's theories...
Your post here nicely reflects how experts may deny experimental evidence that doesn't fit their models; perhaps their models even become their folklore. And that can stand in the way of innovation and progress. And it illustrates the value of someone from outside the field looking in, and perhaps observing things that weren't obvious to the experts who embraced their models... And offering new models that ultimately (hopefully) become accepted...
This really gets to the heart of how explanations have such power: as you say, to clarify or add insight to or stimulate the discovery of new laws, and also at times to impede progress when it isn't yet understood why methods aren't yielding expected results. This seems like one of the most important things for people to understand about scientific process and what we do with "troublesome" data.
I came upon your blog today, and when I read through the titles of each post, I said to myself, each law is limited by the conditions under which it was established. I studied psychology, statistics and research design---not so much the physical or biological sciences, but stumbled into the realm of bioelectromagnetics over two decades ago, and have been following developments in that field as a lay person ever since. Early on, I read how 4.0W/kg came to represent the "threshold of harm" for wireless radiation (as in cellphones, wifi, etc.)---based on the exposure threshold at which a few animals trained to press a bar for food stopped performing the task, though hungry (circa 1980, DeLorge), and the degrees to which their body temperature had risen. The animals were exposed for only a few minutes (not repeatedly for hours, days, years, decades). FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits for RF were set accordingly, with purportedly "50-fold safety margins", though occupational limits allowed only a "10-fold safety margin." Based on the post-WWll world, that was as close as they could get to any kind of consistent basis for a standard---known as the thermal paradigm, oft quoted as "law". Yet, there were unexplained exceptions of seeming harm at much lower exposure levels even then that were explained away, and ignored.
The thermal threshold of harm became standard functioning. It allowed a good bit of latitude for industry and military to develop their technologies. But as research techniques were refined and equipment improved, more and more the stubborn biological effects showed up at lower and lower exposure levels, to the point where now, most of the biological studies on RF and EMF show them. Some effects, like oxidative stress and formation of free radicals show up in 90% (about 550 studies) of all the studies focused on those effects. But much of the science world is stuck back at DeLorge, absolutely certain that low intensity bioeffects are impossible. Of course, that stuck view is very beneficial to some parties, and there's a lot of spinning of information that gets out. It's been the most amazing thing to watch, and so disheartening re the world of science. How does one dislodge an entrenched notion like that, one that is constantly being fortified? Some interesting reads---Nicholas Steneck's (U.Michigan) 1984 book, "The Microwave Debate", a "surprisingly objective foray into the conflicts of technology, science, and values surrounding the health effects of MW exposure" back in the early days. Also, any of several recent public-access articles by Henry Lai, Blake Levitt (and sometimes Al Manville) (2022 and 2023) which discuss the history and scope of NIR standards and effects on humans, wildlife and plants.
I hope you will also discuss such influences on science.