Stephen Black wrote: > On 15 Oct 2004, Allen Esterson wrote: > > > Stephen Black quoted John Gribbin as follows: > > > > "The best things in science are both beautiful and simple, a fact that all > > too many teachers conceal from their students" > > And he then continued: > > > > This is an attractive idea, but by no means always the case (as far as the > > "simple" is concerned). The equation(s) top of the list of greatest > > equations as voted for by a group of physicists recently were the > > electromagnet equations of James Clerk Maxwell. No one would deny that > > this achievement ranks with the greatest in science, but if anyone hopes > > it is simple, take a look at > > http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/10/2/1/pwpov2%5F10%2D04 > > Of course, it all depends on what one means by "simple". While not > supported by the on-line dictionary, I understand simple in this > context to mean "achieves a powerful or far-reaching concept with > great economy of expression". Surely Maxwell's equations fit this > requirement. But if by simple Allen means "readily grasped by the > great unwashed", then I agree that these equations are not simple. > But I think Gribbin had my version in mind in his comment.
It's hardly of the greatest moment, and I hesitate to cross swords with Stephen (though it's usually fun doing so), but I think the rest of Gribbin's sentence bears out my interpretation: "The best things in science are both beautiful and simple, a fact that all too many teachers conceal from their students." Now a teacher could hardly conceal from his students that the *formal equation* that represents a complex theory is simple in form, so I submit that what Gribbin is suggesting is that the *ideas* behind the equation are (relatively) simple but frequently appear obscure because of poor presentation by teachers. As Stephen noted, even with Maxwell's equations the layperson will immediately observe that they are extraordinarily concise -- though the notions they embody taken as a whole are in the genius class and can only be grasped by a relatively small number of people who have put in the requisite time and effort and have the necessary foundational knowledge. I also submit that Gribbin didn't think very hard about what he wrote, but it sounded good (and he knew it would go down well with non-specialist readers for whom his book is written) so in it went. Do I have an antipathy towards John Gribbin? Not at all. He is someone who almost certainly would have achieved something in his field (physics), but preferred to devote himself to writing about science for the general reader. In this his achievement is second to none (and I don't exclude Stephen Jay Gould). Gribbin is extraordinarily prolific and has covered a wide range of subjects in his numerous (and sometimes lengthy) books on various aspects of science, displaying an exceptional depth as well as range of understanding of his subject matter. Nevertheless, judging from the few books of his I've read (and from hearing him on BBC radio) I think he occasionally (though rarely) descends to superficiality. One example of more interest to TIPSters occurs in the short biography of Einstein that he co-authored with Michael White (*Einstein: A Life in Science* [1993]). At one point the authors recount how Einstein, when he was barely 16, removed himself from the school he was attending in Germany half-way through the school-year to follow his parents who had emigrated to Italy some months before. (Einstein's parents did not want his schooling interrupted, and as he had little knowledge of Italian, the plan was that he would follow them when he had gained his school-leaving certificate.) The authors write that when he arrived in Italy he told his father he had decided to renounce both his German citizenship and his Jewish faith. (Not that he had any religious faith by then: he had given that up around the time he was reading Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" when he was thirteen.) Gribbin and White claim these two moves were in tune with his "avowed intention to maintain an isolation from the world and to be the master of his own destiny", and comment that "some have seen this as near-paranoia" and that "the psychologist Anthony Storr sees the action as another symptom of Einstein's schizophrenia". Storr had earlier been cited as suggesting Einstein had "schizophrenic tendencies", supposedly supported by his (later) tendency to free himself from close personal ties, "his total lack of interest in clothes or creature comforts, his desire to remain stateless, and his unequivocal hatred for the German nation." Moreover, following Storr Gribbin and White write: "the fact that Einstein had a poor memory for his own childhood demonstrates a subconscious attempt to eradicate a personal history and further detach himself from the real world". (Talk about pop psychology, even if it does originate with Storr. It is to Storr that we owe this rather pathetic adducing of inconclusive facts to support a highly dubious notion.) What I find (intellectually) depressing is that someone of the intellectual stature of Gribbin should recycle such stuff, evidently in the belief that its value had been authenticated by the fact that it originated from "the eminent psychologist Anthony Storr". I think these speculative ideas are nonsense in more than one respect, not least being Storr's isolation of a few idiosyncratic features of Einstein's personality to 'corroborate' a pet theory, while ignoring material that is not in accord with it. I've rather strayed from the original issue, but I think that there is an important point in there, namely the quite widespread propensity of people who are otherwise generally knowledgeable to bow down before dubious psychodynamic speculations if they emanate from a supposedly authoritative source Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
