(no subject)
Welcome to Keaton it Real. It’s a science column. Well, it’s supposedto be a science column, but I may get bored with that. Then it will bea technology column. Or maybe a “what I ate today and its applicationsto Shakespeare’s As You Like It” column. These are all possibilities,and I hope you bear with me if I get a bit too pedestrian.
As we are not discussing the tortellini I had yesterday, nor are weexamining Act II, Scene III, I suppose we could start with thedefinition of science. At the very least, it may help me to keep mywandering mind to the topic I am supposed to be discussing.
As it happens, definitions in science have a very slipperyquality to them. According to Wikipedia.com, “Science is an attempt toexplain the complexities of nature in a common, known and repeatableway.” This is a reasonable definition. Clean, easy to interpret and notopen to very much interpretation.
That, in fact is the way that scientists prefer it. Complexconcepts and ideas reduced to a fundamental set of principles thatinteract in known ways to produce the world around us.
Unfortunately, defining science is likely to be the easiestdefinition that science can pin down. Though everything we’ve developedin mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences dependsupon a few key axioms or definitions, the definitions themselves tendto be rather vague.
This vagueness stems from the fact that science attempts togeneralize concepts beyond what we as human beings experience. This is,as my math professors would say, a non-trivial task, and examples ofthese problems can range from the very small to the very large.
For the very small, we can consider the definition of time.While we can all feel time passing (though occasionally at differentrates for different classes), it is very hard to define exactly whattime is. Isaac Newton, a self-proclaimed realist, thought that time isone of the fundamental dimensions of the universe and could bemeasured.
Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, believed that time is anintellectual construction, similar to space and number, and that it wasnot a thing to be measured, but instead part of the measuring system.
Physics can’t shed any light on this subject. While Einsteinand his theories of relativity have heightened our understanding of howwe would experience time in different situations, time itself is leftas a fundamental quantity. This means that we accept that it exists anddon’t complain, and measure it for the purposes of experiment relativeto the vibration of atoms.
For another example of definition abuse, let’s take a look atthe concept of planet. Everyone knows what a planet is, right?Unfortunately, it’s not so easy for astronomers. Since 1930, when Plutowas discovered, everyone in the scientific community agreed that therewere nine planets. Sure, Pluto was far smaller than any other planet,and its orbit was a bit more eccentric, but that didn’t matter.
The 2005 discovery of Eris, an object even larger than Pluto,prompted the International Astronomical Union to define exactly what aplanet is. Astronomers debated the merits of different proposals thatranged from simple size requirements, to a more general form that wouldhave caused at least 15 bodies in our solar system to be classified asplanets.
Although the definition that the IAU reached consensus onavoided planet proliferation problems, Pluto’s planetary property,unfortunately, perished. Pluto is now known as a dwarf planet, alongwith many other objects in our solar system.
The point of all of this is simply to show that science, likeeverything else in life, can be vague and unclear. The only differenceis that scientists are often as frustrated as you are that it justdoesn’t make sense.
Keaton Miller is ajunior majoring in economics and mathematics who eagerly waits for theday when time reorganizes itself and all his columns have already beenwritten. This won’t happen, so he’s waiting for your feedback instead.Send complaints about his pedestrian prose and ridiculous alliterationto him.
As we are not discussing the tortellini I had yesterday, nor are weexamining Act II, Scene III, I suppose we could start with thedefinition of science. At the very least, it may help me to keep mywandering mind to the topic I am supposed to be discussing.
As it happens, definitions in science have a very slipperyquality to them. According to Wikipedia.com, “Science is an attempt toexplain the complexities of nature in a common, known and repeatableway.” This is a reasonable definition. Clean, easy to interpret and notopen to very much interpretation.
That, in fact is the way that scientists prefer it. Complexconcepts and ideas reduced to a fundamental set of principles thatinteract in known ways to produce the world around us.
Unfortunately, defining science is likely to be the easiestdefinition that science can pin down. Though everything we’ve developedin mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences dependsupon a few key axioms or definitions, the definitions themselves tendto be rather vague.
This vagueness stems from the fact that science attempts togeneralize concepts beyond what we as human beings experience. This is,as my math professors would say, a non-trivial task, and examples ofthese problems can range from the very small to the very large.
For the very small, we can consider the definition of time.While we can all feel time passing (though occasionally at differentrates for different classes), it is very hard to define exactly whattime is. Isaac Newton, a self-proclaimed realist, thought that time isone of the fundamental dimensions of the universe and could bemeasured.
Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, believed that time is anintellectual construction, similar to space and number, and that it wasnot a thing to be measured, but instead part of the measuring system.
Physics can’t shed any light on this subject. While Einsteinand his theories of relativity have heightened our understanding of howwe would experience time in different situations, time itself is leftas a fundamental quantity. This means that we accept that it exists anddon’t complain, and measure it for the purposes of experiment relativeto the vibration of atoms.
For another example of definition abuse, let’s take a look atthe concept of planet. Everyone knows what a planet is, right?Unfortunately, it’s not so easy for astronomers. Since 1930, when Plutowas discovered, everyone in the scientific community agreed that therewere nine planets. Sure, Pluto was far smaller than any other planet,and its orbit was a bit more eccentric, but that didn’t matter.
The 2005 discovery of Eris, an object even larger than Pluto,prompted the International Astronomical Union to define exactly what aplanet is. Astronomers debated the merits of different proposals thatranged from simple size requirements, to a more general form that wouldhave caused at least 15 bodies in our solar system to be classified asplanets.
Although the definition that the IAU reached consensus onavoided planet proliferation problems, Pluto’s planetary property,unfortunately, perished. Pluto is now known as a dwarf planet, alongwith many other objects in our solar system.
The point of all of this is simply to show that science, likeeverything else in life, can be vague and unclear. The only differenceis that scientists are often as frustrated as you are that it justdoesn’t make sense.
Keaton Miller is ajunior majoring in economics and mathematics who eagerly waits for theday when time reorganizes itself and all his columns have already beenwritten. This won’t happen, so he’s waiting for your feedback instead.Send complaints about his pedestrian prose and ridiculous alliterationto him.