Thursday, September 06, 2012

Learning science without studying


I read a review of the book The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins that said, “This book is primarily aimed at teenagers …” That was enough of an invitation for me to buy that book. I am not a teenager sure, but I am almost insatiably curious when it comes to even tentative explanations of nature, particularly of the kind the author is famous for. In a sense, then, the book is directed at 58 year old teenagers like me.
The book in its hardbound form carries delightful illustrations by Dave McKean I understand, but it costs a bundle. I settled for the illustration-free paperback version at a much lower price (Blackswan edition, ISBN 978-0-552-77890-9) content enough to extend into the pages of this book my imagination from the luxurious illustrations in The Ancestor’s Tale by the same author. I cannot be sure that I had made a judicious choice, but having made one I will be content. The words in the book illustrate that I may have lost only a little.
I will be taking a brief tour of the pages of the book, starting with a sentence that I believe should become a venerable quote over time:
One of the great virtues of science is that scientists know when they don’t know the answer to something.
True, the above sentiment has been expressed hundreds of times by dozens of scientists and philosophers too, even if not in these exact words. But the sentiment deserves to be repeated a million times in hundreds of thousands of ways. Hence it finds its way into my personal book of quotes.
The book has twelve chapters addressing various natural systems and giving scientific explanations for them. Most chapters start by mentioning a number of myths, sourcing widely – from Australia, Arctic, the Nordic countries, Europe, the Americas, China and, of course, Africa. Indian myths, in my opinion are very sparsely represented. No, I am not jealous that our stories have been ignored; rather, I find our stories so imaginative that given the international audience that Dawkins’s books reach, these would have added to the force of his arguments, unfortunately against the myths!
Indeed, these myths range not only worldwide but also from the historic to the current, including what we dismissively tag as “urban myths”, the ones that have the greatest ability to spread in a large population living in a dense pattern – the cities. Remember idols of Lord Ganesha developing a sudden taste for milk!
First, let me tell you about a chapter, besides the first that merely sets the tone of the book, that does not have a myth in its initial paragraphs – the one titled What are things made of? Dawkins tackles myths about the smallest of the small at the end of this chapter by saying he found it hard to locate myths at the scale of atoms and smaller. He notes that, “[T]he fascinating world of the very small never came to the notice of primitive peoples… They had no way of knowing it was there, and so of course they didn’t invent any myths to explain it!” So, I would not be wrong to claim, tongue firmly in cheek, that science was invented to create myths about the very small!
Now, read this sentence: “When you get down to really small things like atoms and nuclei, the distinction between ‘matter’ and ‘empty space’ starts to lose its meaning.” This does sound like a myth, does it not? It must to a teenager, the target reader. Yes, but it is a scientific myth which allows you to expand it to reach scales of everyday life. Taking off from here, he demonstrates in simple terms how air blowing ferociously, say, gale force wind, becomes a solid as far as the pedestrian on the sidewalk is concerned – one cannot walk through. At very small scales, air is a collection of electrons, protons and neutrons and so is a solid. As you scale up they differentiate themselves from each other. But under specific, everyday conditions, air behaves like a solid!
Such simple explanations.
Well, if you think I am making too much of a simple explanation in this case, let me give you another one. How do you distinguish between mass and weight? Most us of have never been in a sustained weightless condition. Everything we experience, our body, the vegetables we buy at the market, the office bag we tote is in terms of weight. True, when the father throws his child in the air only to catch him on the way down, the child experiences weightlessness but only momentarily and this is not an experience that registers, scientifically or otherwise. I am not sure even a bungee jumper realizes that he is weightless as he drops off a bridge. The excitement must be overwhelming. Perhaps parachutists feel weightlessness, but they are such a minuscule lot. Therefore, any conception of mass has to be at the level of a myth for a vast majority of us.
But, it is not so for an orbiting astronaut. A cannon ball will be weightless for her. She can hold the ball without it “falling” because both are “falling”. She will not feel its weight. But it will always have its mass. The thing is, if she tried to heave the cannon ball away from herself she would find herself being pushed back. Why? The cannon ball is not massless, and mass, when accelerated is subjected the laws that carry Newton’s name.
Before reading this particular paragraph in the book, while I understood the difference between mass and weight (the former can be ascertained on earth and only in a comparative sense using a common balance while the latter can be measured for a single object using a spring balance in pre-defined units), I had no clue as to how to argue it out.
The book is full of such simple yet deep explanations, be it about the sun, about rainbows, Doppler Effect, diamonds, evolution, fossils and their absence and on and on. I got thoroughly educated. I learned a lot. Each chapter ended with a question: Was it not magic, of a particular kind, of reality that you read? I had to, despite it being rhetorical, answer the question with a resounding Yes!
The Indian celebration of Teacher’s day fell yesterday. A few days ago I finished reading the book, as usual with marginalia galore. I wanted to send it as a temporary gift for Teacher’s Day to my nephew (I wanted it back) and I was not ashamed that he would easily recognize my level of ignorance. Indeed, I intended to tell him that his generation has learned many things that people of my generation do not yet know, even the basics and even after all these years after having studied the subjects, physics, chemistry, math, biology … I wanted him to learn some new stuff – even for him - that the book must be carrying.
To my horror I realized that at the end of this academic year – only six months away – he will be sitting for the Boards. The Boards! Oh my, how can I interrupt his studies and ask him to learn things, however well-meaning it may be? Does he not have to study continuously? Yes, of course. He will study much but learn almost nothing. Whatever he has truly learned so far is outside of his formal education, with its studies, exams, marks and ranks. So be it.
Why should a teacher not give this book as necessary reading? Because, asking questions out of it may be difficult, for the teacher I hasten to add. The questions are raised and answered in the book but not in any structured way. Actually, as one reads the book questions are raised in the reader’s mind. It is automatic. That is the talent Richard Dawkins has. But, he goes beyond. He draws out the answers too. A true teacher.
Studying is one thing, but learning is another. If only our educators could differentiate, hmmm... Teacher’s Day will truly carry significance then.
Raghuram Ekambaram
   


10 comments:

Indian Satire said...

Raghu I am inspired to buy this book to cure my ignorance without taxing my intellect.

Tomichan Matheikal said...

I wish I could recommend this book to all the science teachers in all the schools...

Would any teacher read? Especially science teachers? I haven't seen any science teacher reading anything except the gossip columns of TOI! My own Teachers Day celebration started with a tirade from the Principal that all teachers are immoral! And tha't why the school is not getting admissions!

I felt very sad to be a teacher though I cannot claim to be moral by the standards of the boss whose standards ...

mandakolathur said...

And, I guarantee you it will be done, even as there is nothing to be "cured". It truly transformed me into a teenager as I read it.

There is another book of similar nature, by Natalie Angier and I will get you the title of that book soon.

RE

mandakolathur said...

The ellipses at the end tells the whole story, Matehikal. Long ago I subscribed to the Vigyan Scientific American magazine, the authorized Indian re-publisher of Scientific American, with an Indian article or two. This was before the original was allowed in India.

One day I went to their offices regarding some subscription matter and the lady there told me that I am a strange creature, an engineer subscribing to that magazine! She said a vast majority of the magazine subscribers were medical professionals!

RE

shajanm said...

Dear Raghuram,

I can't share your enthusiasm about this book. Reason is that Dawkins, as usual, is using his rhetorical skills to hoodwink unsuspecting readers, this time young children.

There isn't anything magical about reality if you follow Richard Dawkins. Measurability is the acid test for reality and anything that can't be measured is simply not real. Anyone feeling 'wonder and awe' about nature must be hallucinating.

Dawkins accuses religious parents of child abuse because parents instil religious faith in children too young to think for themselves. What else is the author doing by telling teenagers there is some kind of 'Magic' in Reality?

-shajan

mandakolathur said...

shanjanm,

Thanks for not endorsing the book. Different strokes for different folks, after all.

Thanks for your certificate that I am an unsuspecting reader. I would assume you had not read the book.

Then, how is it that you confidently assert that he is hoodwinking young adults? Oh, your past experience with his writing? Then, apply the same to religious teachings. Or, go down the ladder of religiosity. Do you believe the recent myth/miracle of Lord Ganesha drinking milk? You must, if you have believed the myths of yesteryears as you set so much store by past learnings.Your past experience with the past myths should set you squarely on the side of the recent myth. Has it?

Without reading even the first chapter you say as per Richard Dawkins reality is devoid of magic. This is DEFINITELY not so.
The reality is the space occupied by what we understand as space is infinitecimal. This you must have known without even reading Dawkins's latest book. Then, why is it you cannot walk through a wall? Actually the regular "magic" (a conjurer's trick) of walking through the wall should be the most unmagical thing but it is the opposite of which that is magical. Reality alters the coordinates of magic, magically. If that is not magic, what is?

Oh, Richard Dawkins does not say that if teenagers do not beleive in what he is saying, there would be ashower of fire and brimstone on them! This is what parents do to children, all as per the dictates of their religion. This, rather than what Dawkins has written in this book and all the others before, is brainwashing.

Please do understand that Dawkins says what he means by magic. It is not rigorously defined but is given as a general idea. You have to read what he says before you start of making assertions. You read that and come back and I will be ready to argue with and accept your position, if there are strong enough reasons to do the latter. Of course, I am assuming you had not read the book. If you have, please be more specific about your charges.

Thanks and regards,

RE

mandakolathur said...

Oops shanjanm,
I had written, "The reality is the space occupied by what we understand as space is infinitecimal." It must instaed read, "The reality is the space occupied by what we understand as matter is infinitecimal."

RE

shajanm said...

Dear Raghuram,

I suspect my comment was not clear enough.

Dawkins’ statement “the facts of the real world as understood through the methods of science – are magical in…the poetic sense” is problematic. I think it contradicts everything Dawkins has said so far.

There isn’t anything magical or awe inspiring about facts of the world as long as they remain mere objective facts. To perceive beauty one need to go beyond objective facts and be one with the object of perception. This is not science.

What exactly is happening when a scientist looks at the starlit sky and see it is beautiful? Twinkling little stars are nothing but massive, luminous balls of plasma held together by gravity. This is an objective fact. As long as the scientist insists that reality of starlit sky is nothing more than his/her objective knowledge, there is no way this experience can lead to beauty or awe. A fact is a fact is a fact. Where does beauty come in?

Appreciation of beauty involves a shifting of perspective. Seeing something as beautiful means the observer is forgetting the objectivity of the thing for a brief moment. There isn’t any beauty to perceive if one remains constantly aware of things as objective descriptions.

It is natural for people, including scientists, to shift perspectives and see the ‘practical use’ as well as ‘beauty and awe’. This is the way we evolved. It is unwise to insist that only one of these contrasting modes of perception is valid.

Mr. Dawkins is eating his cake and having it too. I don’t doubt his claim “facts of the real world as understood through the methods of science – are magical in…the poetic sense”. My point is that it doesn’t gel with the materialistic worldview ‘Real = Objectively knowable’, because in that case the ‘experience of beauty and awe’ cannot be real.

-shajan

mandakolathur said...

Sorry shajanm, I do not accept your position.

When I see a star, I know it is a ball of plasma (not quite, but let me slide over that), but I am amazed that processes over billions of years have created something (may we call it the "human mind"?) that can even begin to comprehend that reality, the facts (actually what we understand is only the facts of a model that offers consistent results to a large extent and not reality as such). It is this which evokes wonder and awe in me.

You say, "What exactly is happening when a scientist looks at the starlit sky and see it is beautiful?" I, admittedly not a scientist, do not know but what I feel is wonder and awe.

It may be revolting for you to see a tiger pouncing on an antelope and it is to me too. But, and this is a big one, at times I am awe struck that the antelope and the tiger have evolved together in a way that both species are sustained! That is wondeful to me. This is truly awesome. I dispute your conclusion, "There isn’t anything magical or awe inspiring about facts of the world as long as they remain mere objective facts." Everything about reality is wonderful and awe inspiring because we have come to understand it, even if only in an incomplete and imperfect manner.

Aren't you awe struck that you and I are merely different assemblages of genes from a vast gene pool of humankind, leavened further by environmental factors, all of which is natural? I am and I am sorry if you are not.

I am absolutely truthful in what I have said. I transcend the facts by wondering at the realization of it as facts. This science enables. Please understand that I have shifted persepctives.

I hope I have answered your question, "As long as the scientist insists that reality of starlit sky is nothing more than his/her objective knowledge, there is no way this experience can lead to beauty or awe. A fact is a fact is a fact. Where does beauty come in?" By the way, the true scientist, who is always skeptical, never uses "nothing more", the proverbial nothing-buttery argument.

Let us go our won ways, shajnam.

Thanks a lot for this engagement.

RE

mandakolathur said...

Oops again, "Let us go away on our own ways"

RE