A
Note To My Scientific Colleagues
The
most formidable enemy of science today is Subjectivism.
Essential to science, as Einstein once observed, is the
understanding that the world exists independent of us and of
our understanding of it. Against science, subjectivists,
especially in the form of deconstructionists, hold that
everything is a construct made by us. Physicist Alan Sokal,
as you will see in the first chapter, did much to manifest
the power currently wielded by the movement. Unfortunately,
scientists have not always answered the subjectivist’s
in a convincing manner. In some cases, scientists themselves,
including leading ones, have for example, claimed via quantum
mechanics that the world does not exist when we’re not
looking at it. What better way to feed subjectivist belief
than to propound that their belief is given by science?
The
confusion about the meaning and foundation of science often
starts inadvertently early. In my field of physics, for
example, sophomore high school students are told to draw the
path of an object on an x-y plot; the student plots time
on one axis and position of the object on the other. If
the object is moving at constant speed, the student draws
a line representing the history of the object's motion
as it moves, say, from the left side of the room to the
right. But note: the student has drawn a picture which
represents time as if it is all at once, because, after
all, the picture is all at once. In the picture, the object
is both at the left and right simultaneously. The path
for not making proper distinctions about time is in place.
It is the beginning of a process of habituation that can
make one think time is reducible or nearly reducible to
space. In the process one ignores and later forgets in
varying degrees the things that one has deliberately left
behind in order to do facilitate analysis. These issues
come to a head when one later studies Einstein’s relativity
theory, for example.
This
book lays the foundation that answers the subjectivists and
other objections to science as well as unravels the many
misinterpretations of modern science that have arisen. Much of
what is said will be readily accepted as obvious, but much
also will be very new. The reader will be asked to step
back from his particular field of interest and look at
its roots and to be careful to distinguish starting points
from conclusions. He will need to be willing to broaden
his thinking, for each field has its own particular methodology
and habits of thought that cannot go unchanged into other
arenas. For example, in physics, I am used to thinking
in terms of mathematics. I can relate to the sci-fi spoof,
Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, which asks, “What is
the meaning of life, the universe and everything?” and
gives the answer: 42. Part of the answer’s humor derives
from the fact that nearly all of what we, as physicists,
do demands mathematical answers; yet we do not expect one
to that question. In short, we frequently need broader
means than the merely mathematical, yet we are not exposed
and do not have facility with broader thinking and so we
instinctively withdraw from the unfamiliar and try to use
our familiar tools. Other fields have parallel issues.
Such tendencies, I think, bear close watching. In general,
it might be helpful to bear in mind a statement that helped
one of my scientific readers better understand how to approach
such broader topics, “Don’t dissect the argument down to
nothing and try to understand it after you’ve killed it,
let yourself understand it then dissect it.” Or in other
words, “Don’t hone right away onto the detail, stay back
and look for awhile first.”
The book
is written to develop the foundation of science in a logical
manner that builds each chapter on the previous. In chapters
three and four, one will encounter topics and discussions
that are little known. Though the subjects will be familiar,
the insights into them will be, for nearly all, completely
new. The depth may seem vast, but one should resist the
temptation to try to understand all at once. I utilize a
spiral approach to the topics so that the reader is not
expected to grasp a given concept completely in the first
encounter. Terminologies and concepts are revisited
throughout the book, including in a glossary. The book is
written so that the reader, on the first read, can obtain a
fundamental understanding and on the second reading deepen
that understanding.
-Anthony
Rizzi, Ph.D.
|
