The Patriot

Here’s a talk by Murray Gell-Mann on truth and beauty in physics. Gell-Mann has an explicitly non-supernatural worldview and yet he marvels at the beauty and order of the universe.

In my previous post, I commented on a quote from Richard Feynman regarding California science textbooks.  Here I’d like to comment on another quote from the same context.

One gets the impression then that science is to be a set of pat formulas to standard questions. “What makes it move,” quickly all hands are eagerly raised, the lesson is learned, they are to say “Energy makes it move,” “Gravity makes it fall,” “The soles of our shoes wear out because of friction.” Just words, nothing is explained.

Science is a way of thinking. Having students merely recite conclusions of science will not teach them science. In fact, it will suppress their ability to think scientifically.

A few days ago a statistician told me about his experience teaching physics students about uncertainty. He said they have a very hard time accepting that some uncertainty always remains after drawing conclusions from an experiment. I said that surely physics majors understand the provisional nature of science. He assured me they do not. He said they believe Newton received a revelation and then later Einstein received another revelation, but other than that, physics is exact with no room for uncertainty. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but there is a lot of truth to it. I’m sure these students would tell you how science is provisional (when prompted, just like the students in Feynman’s quote!) but there isn’t much room for uncertainty in their unprompted thinking.

How can this be? How can science majors not have the basics of scientific thought firmly in their heads? I imagine they were taught in the way Feynman criticizes above. They may be taught explicitly that the conclusions of science are provisional, but they are taught implicitly that science has everything figured out.  They may pick up the impression that science was once fallible — there was that embarrassing business of phlogiston and aether — but now we’re beyond that. This impression will be reinforced though homework assignments and tests that never touch on anything uncertain.

There is much controversy over whether students should be allowed to question the theory of evolution. Of course they should question evolution. They should also question conservation of energy, Ohm’s law, photosynthesis, and everything else they’re taught in science. A science class should teach students to ask questions. Why do we believe this is true? How did someone first think of this? What other explanations would lead to the same result? How might you design an experiment to decide between two explanations?

If a non-physicist has a poster of a physicist, it’s probably a poster of Albert Einstein. But if a physicist has a poster of a physicist, it’s likely to be a poster of Richard Feynman. Feynman is somewhat of a cult hero among physicists because not only was he a top-notch researcher — he won the Nobel prize in 1965 — but also a colorful character. He is remembered for his teaching, his bongo playing, his practical jokes, and his public service as well as his science.

Michelle Feynman edited a collection of her father’s correspondence into a book Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track. Here I want to comment on a quotation from a letter Richard Feynman wrote regarding his review of science textbooks for the California State Curriculum Commission. The quote comes from pages 214 of the book and includes the phrase that became the title of the book.

… the teacher’s manual doesn’t realize the possibilities of correct answers different from the expected ones and the teacher instruction is not enough to enable her to deal with perfectly reasonable deviations from the beaten track.

Poor teachers fear deviations from the beaten track; good teachers delight in them. Poor teachers fear that deviations will expose their ignorance. Good teachers know their subject well but are not afraid to admit ignorance when necessary. Poor teachers fear that deviations will cause them to lose control. Good teachers are willing to let go of a little superficial control in exchange for more control at a deeper level. When students deviate from the beaten track, they are interacting with the material and beginning to make it their own. Good teachers try to create such situations, not suppress them.

Today Gene Veith followed up on the topic of two Christian views of vocation that he introduced yesterday. See his new post Those two doctrines of vocation.

Gene Veith has posted a couple fun articles on coffee on his blog lately: Of Coffee and Christianity and The coffee maker and two doctrines of vocation. He ends the latter post by asking how two different Christian perspectives on vocation, the Reformed view and the Lutheran view, would evaluate his story about a barista.

Veith says that the Reformed view is that we carry out our vocations to the glory of God and that the Lutheran view was that we carry them out to love and serve our neighbors. I was surprised to read that there even were two identifyable views. Surely Reformed Christians believe that they are loving and serving their neighbors in their calling and Lutherans believe they are doing their work to the glory of God. But apparently each tradition has a different emphasis.

Billy Graham addressed the TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) conference in 1998. His presentation was just posted recently on the TED website.

It’s impressive to hear Graham completely being himself, yet relating to an audience that would hardly be called like-minded.

This summer I’m helping teach a course in medical statistics. There are a few dozen students in the classroom in Houston, and several other students in two remote locations. The remote students see me via a camera pointed at my podium. The Houston students and I see the remote students projected on a screen at the front of the room.

The classroom suppresses spontaneity. I can’t run over to a marker-board and answer a question because the remote students couldn’t see what’s going on. Not that there are many questions. The students attending live don’t have microphones. If they do ask a question, either someone runs up to them with a microphone as if they were in the audience of a talk show, or I repeat the question into my microphone. I encourage questions, but the classroom discourages them. The classroom usually wins. As much as I would prefer to engage students in discussion, the room was designed for PowerPoint presentations.

Although I’m frustrated by the technology, I realize that without it students outside major cities would have fewer opportunities. I’m learning to adjust to my limitations. (It’s interesting how adding teleconference equipment to a room decreases its functionality.) I wonder what kinds of dialogs Plato would have with his students if they had been in scattered locations talking into web-cams.

Tom Ziglar, son of the famous speaker and author Zig Ziglar, gave an interview recently on the Startup Story Radio podcast. One of the things that struck me about the interview was Tom’s respect and affection for his father. Rather than seek to make a name for himself, he seemed unashamed, even proud, to quote his father.

Tom Ziglar has been working for over 20 years in the company his father founded. He describes in the interview how his father teaches people to follow simple biblical principles. When asked whether these principles are common sense, he gives examples of how people may think they’re following these principles but are not carrying them through to their logical conclusions.

Ben Dunlap told tells the remarkable story of Holocaust survivor Sandor Teszler here. Toward the end of his long life, Teszler told Dunlap that he believed people are basically good and exhorted Dunlap to believe the same.

Christianity teaches two fundamental truths about humanity: we are created in the image of God, and we are fallen. Because we are fallen, we are not basically good. We are born rebels against God, sinners in need of a Savior. But we are also created in the image of God. The fall distorted that image, but did not destroy it. It is inspiring to learn of people like Sandor Teszler who believe in the good in people and work to draw it out.

The May 3/10 issue of World Magazine carries a story about pastor and author Eugene Peterson. When newcomers asked what activities his church offered, he replied “if you’d let me be your pastor I’d help you learn not to want so much activity.”