Should Science be a *practical* thing?

[Macavity]

Should Science be a *practical* thing? Let me come out and suggest that
I personally & firmly feel Science should be a *Practical Thing*. To clarify,
For me, the Roots of Science are firmly embedded in practical Experiment!
I still have this vague notion that MANY Amateur Astronomers agree with
that notion? But I may be entirely wrong in that assumption? [teasing] 😛

But ultimately, ours is a hobby that stresses a collective PRACTICAL side?
At local meetings, the "Expert in Collimation" might be a *Sheep Farmer*
(This is Wales! lol) - Or the guy who "Knew about Eyepieces", could be an
Engineer, who once (We are old?) worked in (Astronomy!) "Big Science"!
For me, it felt a welcome relief from SOME past "Professional" Science. 😅

(Social Media) "Popular Science" seems more "Science Elitism"... "Science
Populism"? The Science FANS often admit that they understand very little
of the Science involved!!! But they LOVE it for being "anti-establishment"?
But there seems little to encourage ordinary Jack/Jill to become Scientists!
The villian of the piece is now the/we grass-roots, hard-working *practical*
Scientists... We "Lesser Scientists" -- "Sheeple" of a Conspiracy Theory? 😡

P.S. I note Sabine Hossenfelder has indentified the TRUE "Root of all Evil"?
It's not "String Theorists"... Nor even just... "Particle Physicists"? lol. It's the
dreaded Experimental Particle Physicist. I cannot say I'm TOO surprised? 🤣

Edited August 8, 2023 by Macavity

[Carbon Brush]

Thinking back to my school days (when physics chemistry and biology were separate subjects) I definitely enjoyed the practical aspects of the studies.
Planning an experiment and writing a report were also enjoyable.
So yes science is a practical subject.

By the way. Astronomy is a very practical and varied hobby.
Yes some will buy a full set of kit from a shop and stare upwards. That is fine.
My enjoyment is trying different things. Building different assemblies and the like.
The hobby can include understanding planetary motion, optics, mechanical engineering, electronics engineering, programming and more.

[vlaiv]

Not entirely.

If I understand you correctly - by practical, you mean: we do experiments to confirm stuff and we use science for practical applications - like knowing how to calculate things to make radio or whatever.

That is large part, but science has predictive side as well. Once we accept certain model, thinking about that model will yield some insight about the nature we previously did not think about. It will certainly end up in practical again - like atom is made up out of some particles - let's try to split it.

Without insight that atom is made out of smaller particles and idea of splitting it and how to best go about it - we would not have practical part.

In that sense - there is a part of science that is just mental process without practical part. This is where theoretical physicist come in (there simply is too much stuff for one person to perform and we must split effort - have theoretical physicists and experimental physicists and even split them by field of study).

 

[andrew s]

For me science is a dance between theory and experiment. No experiment is theory free nor should any scientific theory be freed from experimental verification. At times theory leads and experiments follow other time new observations open up new theoretical advances. 

Astronomy  / cosmology is unusual in that one cannot do controlled experiments but its predictions should be subject to observational confirmation. 

Regards Andrew 

[Macavity]

31 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Not entirely. If I understand you correctly...

I am interested in ideas from Amateur Astronomers... Rather than Social Media? 😛
I see no (never saw any) conflict between Theoreticians & Eperimentalists! But,
"Big Science" requires a LOT of "practical" Scientists to build / run experiments?
International Labs, had culture of equality between Theorists & Experimentalists.

Nevertheless, sometimes, in the absence of "Experiments" to BUILD, it can seem
that there is an increasing division between the above? A young scientist remarked
that he had "Forgotten any Theory" - That he had just been "developing software"
for the last TEN years. He arrived LONG after his (LHC) Experiment had been built. 😉

Perhaps he felt a bit like a "Ph.D. Technician"? Someone suggested he
become a "grade school" teacher - To rekindle his passion for science?
I am happy to address a "Bunch of Scientists"! The latter would terrify? 😅

Edited August 8, 2023 by Macavity

[Xilman]

22 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

It will certainly end up in practical again - like atom is made up out of some particles - let's try to split it

 

Until Rutherford bounced alpha particles (the nature of which was not well known at the time, they could well have been charged atoms as far as he know) it was not at all clear that atoms were made of particles other than electrons. The size of atoms could be estimated at the time but it was generally thought that they were fairly uniform balls of mixed positive and negative charges.

Seeing alpha particles bouncing off at immense angles convinced everyone that an atom has a tiny positively charged nucleus (a particle) inside a negatively charged ball which was presumably made up of electrons. A fuller theoretical model of the atom came along later.

[andrew s]

One can have an interest in astronomy without freezing ones ***s off at night under the firmament. Armchair astronomers are fine by me. Why on earth would one disqualify them from this diverse hobby. 

I have given up serious observing and now just look up when out at night is this somehow deviant? 

Don't answer that.  😊

Regards Andrew 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by andrew s

[saac]

It can be both or singular surely.  In education (secondary school) it is the practical element of science that places the cap on class size. A non practical subject such as Maths, English Languages etc can have a maximum of 30 pupils while a science class (single subject or composite) is capped at 20.  As an engineer I've always seen Physics having a strong practical association.  I think in the profession world of science though the association is less important. There are aspects of science in any displinces where the theoretical task provides a sufficient workload.  I think the spilt or theoretical and practical works quite well allowing people to play to their strengths. 

Jim  

[Macavity]

Well, maybe my attempt at "Polemic"(?) failed a bit... In the face of
Astronomical common sense? I do feel, increasingly, that BOTH sides
of the "great Physics debate" (funding future science facilities?) use
the same "conspiracy theorist" ideas, to appeal to their LAY fanbase.
It just gets less subtle with time? I should *avoid* some Youtubers! 😁

Recently, I came across some research into "Science Related Populism"
- The idea that an "elite group" (fellow scientists even?) is... "Fooling"
the general public? "Just stick with me"... "Like my Channel" and YOU
will understand? lol. Unfortunately, the above papers draw analogies
with controversial areas. But, if you type these words into Google? 😉

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/apr/24/fake-or-fact-how-to-recognise-a-conspiracy-theory

P.S. If Zuck & Elon really do Cage Fight, "I'd pay good money"! lol 🤣

Edited August 8, 2023 by Macavity

[Macavity]

Maybe I will ask the moderators to delete this thread? lol. 🙃

The idea I was  *trying* to express is perhaps *too difficult*
without seeming "Political"? But sometimes, when I look at
Youtube Videos & Blogs, by *certain* Theoretical Physicists
(the usual suspects?) it's like entering "Alternative Reality"! 😁

Back in the 80's, I certainly came across anti-experimentalist
prejudice from certain of the "Theoretican" community and
certain Universities. Frankly, I blame "priviliged" education. 😑  

If I could "champion" anything, it is the idea that you don't
have to speak with the "right" accent... go to the right school
(or University)  - Be a Theoretician OR an Experimentalist". 😉

Maybe my "audience" is not the "Science Fans"... Maybe it is
some "ordinary kid", who simply aspires "work on the LHC"?
Perhaps an article in the *CERN Courier* inspired them etc.

As I get older... less well... less to lose... Maybe I should go
back on Social Media? Put the *NITWITS* "to the sword"... 🤣

[andrew s]

What you need to remember  @Macavity is that You Tube is just one more source of income along with grant's, TV etc. I think it's more about money than politics as such.

Regards Andrew 

PS and as @saac just posted below power and influence I.e. politics with a small p. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by andrew s

[saac]

I don't get the antagonism, theoretical vice practical, they are pretty much dead in the water without each other are they not?  Is it a power play thing about who gets the top jobs in programmes or academia?

Jim 

[iantaylor2uk]

If you do experiments to try to "prove" Newton's laws of motion you will find it quite difficult. For example, bodies do not experimentally appear to travel at constant speed but instead appear to slow down - this is due to friction. At some point you have to make the jump from complex experimental data to simplify things in a model. Newton realized that in the absence of friction (or other forces) bodies would travel in straight lines at constant speed indefinitely.

[Ouroboros]

23 hours ago, andrew s said:

For me science is a dance between theory and experiment. No experiment is theory free nor should any scientific theory be freed from experimental verification. At times theory leads and experiments follow other time new observations open up new theoretical advances. 

Astronomy  / cosmology is unusual in that one cannot do controlled experiments but its predictions should be subject to observational confirmation. 

Regards Andrew 

I agree.  We only truly understand the world in scientific terms through scientific theories.  All scientific observations or experimental results are  ‘theory laden’ or, putting it less succinctly, only make sense in terms of an underlying scientific theory or explanation.

[saac]

18 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

If you do experiments to try to "prove" Newton's laws of motion you will find it quite difficult. For example, bodies do not experimentally appear to travel at constant speed but instead appear to slow down - this is due to friction. At some point you have to make the jump from complex experimental data to simplify things in a model. Newton realized that in the absence of friction (or other forces) bodies would travel in straight lines at constant speed indefinitely.

Agreed but that is where the art/skill of the practical investigator is needed is it not? The skill lies not just in the design and operation of the experimental setup  but also in the processing, presentation and interpretation of data. A simple experiment to show the linear relationship between an unbalanced force, mass and acceleration will produce a scatter graph and a linear fit with good level of confidence, good enough to state F = ma.   At the more complex level say LHC, I would have thought that the practical physicists and engineers are an essential part of the discussions when the theorists consider the data. These are the guys who will know their instrument response, resolutions, sources of error that could pollute or obscure the data.  Or am I being naive, I must admit I have no experience of  this environment. 

 

As an aside having just watched the Oppenheimer movie the other day - it struck me that people like Oppenheimer and his pals (Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg  etc) they must truly see the world differently, their focus, the catch point that intrigues them. I think when your brain and emotions are tuned to that type of interaction then it is perhaps at the expense of the practical skills that others may excel at. It must be very rare to have both skills present in an individual. 

Jim

 

 

 

(eliminating influences  which remove the setup from the ideal

Edited August 9, 2023 by saac

[Macavity]

38 minutes ago, andrew s said:

What you need to remember  @Macavity is that You Tube is just one more source of income ...

Heheh - I KNOW that really? lol. When you leave (30 years) the "world of science", it is easy
to fall prey to the "arrant nonsense" of today's Social Media - There, I SAID IT - "Sue me"! lol 😛
I always understood that science was a "human thing" - Good and Bad etc. Perhaps one can
rather idealise science? No bad thing to discuss more contemporary experiences / thoughts! 😎

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

19 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

If you do experiments to try to "prove" Newton's laws of motion you will find it quite difficult. For example, bodies do not experimentally appear to travel at constant speed but instead appear to slow down - this is due to friction. At some point you have to make the jump from complex experimental data to simplify things in a model. Newton realized that in the absence of friction (or other forces) bodies would travel in straight lines at constant speed indefinitely.

Just picking up on your post again Ian as it reminded me of a wonderful video clip from one of Brian Cox's programmes. I show it in class and apart from commenting on the free fall acceleration I make a point of commenting on the joyous expressions shown on the faces of not just Cox but the senior NASA Engineer and his crew. These are professionals in their various fields with many years demonstrable  experience and success. They know intuitively as they know how to breathe that all objects will accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field irrespective of mass.  But when they physically see both the bowling ball and the feathers behave as Newton predicted they are overcome with emotion.  I love it every time I watch it - it sums up for me what science is really about, that child like  wonder of the world. 

Jim 

 

[andrew s]

19 minutes ago, saac said:

But when they physically see both the bowling ball and the feathers behave as Newton predicted they are overcome with emotion

Yes falling off a  building never hurt anyone.  It's the stopping at the bottom that does the damage.

To miss quote Simon and Garfunkel.  "I'd rather be a feather than a ball"

Regards Andrew 

[Richard N]

Einstein was a theoretical physicist. 

[iantaylor2uk]

1 hour ago, saac said:

Agreed but that is where the art/skill of the practical investigator is needed is it not? The skill lies not just in the design and operation of the experimental setup  but also in the processing, presentation and interpretation of data. A simple experiment to show the linear relationship between an unbalanced force, mass and acceleration will produce a scatter graph and a linear fit with good level of confidence, good enough to state F = ma.   At the more complex level say LHC, I would have thought that the practical physicists and engineers are an essential part of the discussions when the theorists consider the data. These are the guys who will know their instrument response, resolutions, sources of error that could pollute or obscure the data.  Or am I being naive, I must admit I have no experience of  this environment. 

 

As an aside having just watched the Oppenheimer movie the other day - it struck me that people like Oppenheimer and his pals (Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg  etc) they must truly see the world differently, their focus, the catch point that intrigues them. I think when your brain and emotions are tuned to that type of interaction then it is perhaps at the expense of the practical skills that others may excel at. It must be very rare to have both skills present in an individual. 

Jim

 

 

 

(eliminating influences  which remove the setup from the ideal

I'm not sure they do think in a different way. If you apply Newton's laws to atoms, you end up with nonsense. If you assume a classical picture of an electron moving in a circle around a nucleus, then electromagnetic theory would say that the electron would lose energy and so spiral in towards the nucleus. It doesn't do this, as atoms are observed to be stable, so you need different physics to describe what goes on in an atom. There is also the fact that objects, such as the electron and photon, sometimes behave as waves and sometimes behave as particles, although they are neither of these, and what they are is not at present understood all that well. These ideas led on to the concept that atoms are stable when the number of wavelengths of an electron around a nucleus was a whole number (this is Bohr's simple model of an atom). These fairly simple ideas then led on to the more complex mathematics of quantum mechanics. For example, if objects behave as waves, then there must be a corresponding "wave equation" which was written down by Schrodinger, although the novel aspect was that his wave equation involved complex numbers, whereas conventional wave equations (for modelling sound waves or waves in the ocean) did not contain complex numbers.  

[John]

Meanwhile, 52 years ago:

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop - Moon: NASA Science

[saac]

6 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

I'm not sure they do think in a different way. If you apply Newton's laws to atoms, you end up with nonsense. If you assume a classical picture of an electron moving in a circle around a nucleus, then electromagnetic theory would say that the electron would lose energy and so spiral in towards the nucleus. It doesn't do this, as atoms are observed to be stable, so you need different physics to describe what goes on in an atom. There is also the fact that objects, such as the electron and photon, sometimes behave as waves and sometimes behave as particles, although they are neither of these, and what they are is not at present understood all that well. These ideas led on to the concept that atoms are stable when the number of wavelengths of an electron around a nucleus was a whole number (this is Bohr's simple model of an atom). These fairly simple ideas then led on to the more complex mathematics of quantum mechanics. For example, if objects behave as waves, then there must be a corresponding "wave equation" which was written down by Schrodinger, although the novel aspect was that his wave equation involved complex numbers, whereas conventional wave equations (for modelling sound waves or waves in the ocean) did not contain complex numbers.  

The complex numbers in Schrodinger's equation reflect the complex vibration phase of the wave but, neither the Bhor model or Schrodinger's wave equation describe the separation of the two disciplines (theoretical and practical)   My point being that those with a practical disposition are not necessarily best equipped in exercising their minds to model the world as seen by the theorist. As alien as as a practical task would be to a theorist.  I don't find it surprising that many of the great theoretical physicist such as Oppenheimer were "useless" in a practical setting.; it is a different skill set altogether. 

Jim 

[Ratlet]

On the theoretical side I've always taken it that science doesn't describe how it is, rather how it behaves.

At the end of the day, a theory is put forward to describe how something behaves.  If it doesn't pan out through experimental evidence then it's kind of just maths I guess?  It doesn't need to have a practical application, but predictions need to be verifiable.

It's often overlooked that whilst most of science is held as being truths, the reality is that they are 'best fits'.  If something more accurate comes along it will (when the old guard dies most likely) replace the existing dogma.  Hell, scientists will sometimes change the model depending on what they are doing.

  Sometimes Newtonian gravity calculations are good enough so why use relativity?

I like the thought that I can look back during my short 40 years on this earth and can rattle off the number of times an existing theory has been overturned or some other major changes has become apparent.  The acceleration of the expansion of the universe, dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds, not reptiles, etc.

When the old has been over written it's not a case of a new truth has been established, rather a better fit has been fitted.

[saac]

57 minutes ago, John said:

Meanwhile, 52 years ago:

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop - Moon: NASA Science

Yep we use that as well but to be honest I favour Cox's interpretation as it  brings it bang up to date with HD slow mo video and of course the larger drop.  besides the kids know we didn't actually go to the moon  

Jim

Edited August 9, 2023 by saac

[saac]

5 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

On the theoretical side I've always taken it that science doesn't describe how it is, rather how it behaves.

At the end of the day, a theory is put forward to describe how something behaves.  If it doesn't pan out through experimental evidence then it's kind of just maths I guess?  It doesn't need to have a practical application, but predictions need to be verifiable.

It's often overlooked that whilst most of science is held as being truths, the reality is that they are 'best fits'.  If something more accurate comes along it will (when the old guard dies most likely) replace the existing dogma.  Hell, scientists will sometimes change the model depending on what they are doing.

  Sometimes Newtonian gravity calculations are good enough so why use relativity?

I like the thought that I can look back during my short 40 years on this earth and can rattle off the number of times an existing theory has been overturned or some other major changes has become apparent.  The acceleration of the expansion of the universe, dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds, not reptiles, etc.

When the old has been over written it's not a case of a new truth has been established, rather a better fit has been fitted.

I think a more accurate interpretation is science describes how we think (understand) how nature behaves. That understanding is not perfect (complete) and not fixed and will always evolve. 

Jim 

Edited August 9, 2023 by saac