…Kidding!

cheers,

-cvj

Thanks for the engaging debate. We may have different views about wether objective truth exists or can be found or whatever. I don’t have anything to change in my position in light of your comments, so I’ll leave it. I can certainly understand the other side of that debate. I also agree that “truth” was not Cole’s main point. (Although anyone who puts “blue” in quotes shouldn’t be surprised if readers infer a position on “truth.”)

I do find it frustrating when people use references to quantum mechanics and relativity to support positions that are not specific to those theories, like this whole point-of-view thing. It seems designed to give the position the credibility of science while placing it out of reach, and therefore beyond the criticism, of the lay reader. Would the meter stick argument have been any less accurate? How about binocular vision, that’s a point-of-view thing? These spurious quantum/relativity references are commonly given and it drives me nuts. However, I should probably talk to a therapist about that rather than posting blog comments. (Well, maybe in addition to posting blog comments. I don’t want everyone to think they can have a quantum/relativity/philosophy free-for-all without me taking a few shots.)

Cheers,
Gavin

By the way, with regards your parenthetical remark in your penultimate paragraph above, I will say only two words: “quantum” and “gravity”, and then ask you to consider them next to each other in the light of the paragraph of yours that I blockquoted in my comment #26.

Cheers,

-cvj

Do we agree that this is a general lesson of science and is in no way specific to relativity and quantum mechanics?

Gavin

So we are all in agreement that point of view is very, very, mega-super-important

That’s all she’s saying, imho. Good, we agree. We’re done.

Cheers,

-cvj

P.S. Then you muddle it all by the paragraphs after, offering things like “closer to the objective truth”, and “objective truth is attainable, at least asymptotically”….. as evidence of objectivity and arguments against her central points. Nope, they don’t work. First, the above quoted things are analogous to the often used “pretty unique”. Something is either unique, or it is not. Something is either objective, or it is not. Second, all we have to do is agree on the blockquoted comment above, and then you agree with KC that this is part of science…and an important lesson to extrapolate to other areas. I don’t think she was making any deeper a point than that (but she can set us straight if she wishes to)…..You seem to be arguing now for the sake of it at a level of detail that was not meant. Which is ok of course…. but…..

I’m not arguing that point of view doesn’t exist. I’m arguing that this is not the lesson of relativity and quantum mechanics. She could have said

The lesson of the meter stick is that “truth” emerges only when “point of view” is inserted squarely into the equation.

After all, a meter stick only measures distance relative to the end of the stick. There is no “absolute position;” it is all relative. So her claim doesn’t really have anything to do with relativity or quantum mechanics, it is part of the whole measurement story back to ancient times. So I totally agree with you. This is “not rocket science.” It is not modern physics at all. Since it is so easy to understand, why are we getting modern physics involved?

So we are all in agreement that point of view is very, very, mega-super-important and must be taken into account when doing measurements. The question is where do we go from there. Is the meter stick useful because it allows us to make this profound observation about the point-of-veiw dependent nature of position? Do we conclude that “truth” is unattainable, that “objective reality” is just a construct of our point of view?

That’s not how I use my meter stick. I use it to find the length of things in a way that is objective. Some people think I’m tall, other people think I’m short, but they all agree that I am 1.86 meters from head to foot. That is the point-of-view independent truth about my height, thanks to the meter stick.

Of course high velocity observers have a different view of my height, which is why relativity introduces the notion of invariant distance, which everyone can agree on. Quantum mechanics introduces new challenges, but the wave function interpretation resolves them. This back and forth from confusion to resolution to confusion again is how science moves ahead. The amazing thing about science isn’t that it keeps dishing up confusion (any half-baked religion can do that), it is that science keeps dishing up resolutions. Planets don’t go in circles, but they do obey Newton’s law of gravitation. Time between events is measured differently by different observers, but invariant separation same for everybody. Electrons are not fully described as either waves or particles, but they are described by wave functions.

You know a lot of physics, Clifford, so you can point out why every resolution I gave in the last paragraph has fallen to a new confusion (as you did earlier by changing the subject from quantum mechanics, which does not require an energy scale, to quantum field theory, which does). But my point is that each iteration is bringing us closer to the objective truth. Most people would not view my claim to being 1.85 meters tall to be point-of-view dependent, but I don’t have a lot of friends who travel at near light speed. My invariant height is more objective because even high speed friends could agree. If we figure out the beta-function for my height, then we could correct for everyone’s choice of renormalization scale, etc.

The lesson of science is not that the objective truth is unattainable, it is that the objective truth is attainable, at least asymptotically. If science was just point-of-view dependent mush then we wouldn’t need all of this training to do it.

Gavin

-cvj

Well said, Quibbler. I think this is maybe what I wanted to say in a roundabout way. The manner in which science is taught and conveyed by the media often does not allow much room for creative possibilities. It’s like whenever some new research comes out about how many spiders we eat while we sleep or about how Cheerios decreases heart disease risk or something, it’s like it’s some deep truth come revealed, until some research comes out later debunking it, of course. Like that whole thing with eggs and cholesterol. You’re right, media definitely has a big role in disseminating false conceptions of objectivity in both science and journalism.

Relativity and quantum mechanics don’t just point out the problem, they fix the problem by giving us a new description (”truth”) that is independent of the point of view. The lesson of relativity is that space-time is a manifold with Lorentzian metric governed by Einstein’s equation. The lesson of quantum mechanics is that the state of a system is a Hilbert-space vector which evolves according to Schrodinger’s equation.

I don’t understand: Down to what distance scale does this “truth” hold? So you need to insert a statement about when energy scale you’re working up to…. sounds like a “point of view” to me.

When I write Einstein’s equation and Schrodinger’s equation I don’t insert “point of view” into the equation. These equations contain only terms like curvature and the stress-energy-momentum tensor that are independent of the point of view.

What?! I don’t understand this. Writing an equation does not finish the job of doing physics. What happens when I make a measurement? Don’t I then need to specify a frame? Isn’t that a “point of view”?

Seems to me that this is not very hard to understand at all. It’s pretty easy in fact. “Not rocket science”, as they say.

…But then I don’t go in for all the fancy philosophy, so maybe I’m missing something “deep”.

-cvj

Instead, the lesson of both relativity and quantum mechanics is that “truth” emerges only when “point of view” is inserted squarely into the equation.

Certainly one of the lessons of relativity and quantum mechanics is that, if you take the classical newtonian description of the world seriously, then your results will depend on your point of view. The time elapsed on a clock depends on your speed, and the particle or wave nature of light depends on the experiment.

But that is not the end of the story. When scientist get results that depend on their point of view they get to work trying to fix the problem. Because the point of view matters, classical newtonian physics is wrong. Relativity and quantum mechanics don’t just point out the problem, they fix the problem by giving us a new description (”truth”) that is independent of the point of view. The lesson of relativity is that space-time is a manifold with Lorentzian metric governed by Einstein’s equation. The lesson of quantum mechanics is that the state of a system is a Hilbert-space vector which evolves according to Schrodinger’s equation.

When I write Einstein’s equation and Schrodinger’s equation I don’t insert “point of view” (linearly, squarely, cubicly or otherwise) into the equation. These equations contain only terms like curvature and the stress-energy-momentum tensor that are independent of the point of view. It seems to me that the lesson from physics is that truth emerges when you figure out how to remove point of view from the equation.

I think that basic physics instruction is often to blame for this “point of view” confusion. We spend three quarters teaching classical newtonian physics as a consistent, predictive theory. Then in the final quarter we introduce relativity and quantum mechanics as a pile of paradoxes with no resolution. However, there is a resolution, but it is complicated. These modern theories are just as objective and point-of-view independent as classical newtonian mechanics, but students don’t get that sense from the way it is taught.

Gavin

Not to be difficult, but if that is not what your words mean, would you mind telling us what they do mean?

You point to a very real challenge for both science and journalism, which is understanding the limitations of our “point of view.” There are two ways to respond to this challenge. One is to conclude that the challenge is insurmountable or even fundamental; that there is no way for us to discover the truth or that there is no truth at all. The second is to respond by working really hard to overcome our limitations and find that truth anyway.

Having read both your original post and this post, I concluded that you were taking the first choice, arguing that the challenge is insurmountable. But I must admit that I may be reading too much into the frequent use of quotation marks around words like “truth,” “objective reality” and “blue.” Could you clarify?

This hits close to home for scientists because we generally are proponents of option two, the idea that with hard work you can find the truth. In your mention of the big bang, you describe exactly how we do it. We approach the problem from many different points of view and find out what remains constant. This is not an easy process, but our experience is that it is possible. Eventually you get to something that doesn’t change no matter how you look at it. This is the truth about objective reality.

Your description of the problem is quite articulate, but you only give hints of a resolution. Since you don’t like us reading between the lines, perhaps you could tell us what to conclude.

Gavin

–Q

But in regards to objectivity….

John Baez:The problem of course is that in the standard modern picture, science is empirical, based on induction, and tends to favor a materialistic ontology, while mathematics is non-empirical, based on deduction, and tends to favor a Platonist/Pythagorean ontology… yet somehow they need each other!

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=286#comment-5594

So if as a reporter, you combined good theoretical judgement in relation to let’s say “string theory,” you have reached a better plateau of understanding and hence a better disemminator of the “general concepts” derived from string theory?

You know what I think? Okay, I’ll tell you anyway

Some are not very “creative,” even if they were very good abstract people at using mathematical frameworks. Can they help the general public percieve what is taking place. Non? Oui?

So part of the effort would be to invoke internal valuation(dialogue) with current ideologies that come from string theory. I have seen the dark side, so let’s not be foolish about this.

“Without shadows what use would the sun be?” That’s all I got for “one liners,” Is that okay?

Nobody laughed.

But although I disagree with you, I do respect your right to your opinion about the article, which you expressed much better on the second try. Well done.

cheers,

-cvj

K.C. Cole said that whether you see a particle or a wave depends on the equipment you use. However, as a journalist, her remit is not to establish whether things are best described as waves or particles, but to write about the world. Her comment about being white, middle-aged etc was in reference to her own job. The Categorically Not! meetings are not just about physics, and neither was this comment.

Of course, I was joking. But clearly KC Cole wants us to get the impression that there is some kind of parallel between doing the double-slit experiment and writing journalism. That seems pretty laughable to me. Hence the joke. Note to cvj and Sean: “jokes” are these things that are often designed to make a point in a pithy way. They frequently take the form of “one-liners”. KC Cole’s article is really very lame. I didn’t think an extended exegesis was necessary.

there is certainly a problem with how science is presented to the public if people think that teaching ID will allow people to make up their own minds about what to believe.

i think Chris made a good point:

‘While I think it is undoubtedly valuable for journalists to understand how scientists understand “objectivity” and why they have little use for the term, one should also acknowledge the differing problem situations of scientists and journalists.’

i agree.

i also think that scientists who communicate science to the public often take for granted that when they talk to other scientists, some things are understood, like “i did this and i got this result”. because scientists do sometimes say “i got this result”: without saying how or where. other scientists fill in the “doing” part mentally, but the public may not. as Plato said, this presupposes some knowledge

a journalist or schoolteacher might not fill it in mentally, so the only part that is being transmitted to the public is “i got this result”, and without knowing where or how the result was obtained, the public is asked (implicitely but sometimes explicitely — i have read letters to newspapers from scientists that say stuff like “well, i am the head of xyz, and *i* say that ID is nonsense.”) to take the result on trust, thus removing the result from the realm of science and placing it in the realm of belief.

it would be extemely valuable if not only journalists and teachers, but also scientists were to explicitely understand how scientists understand “objectivity.” many scientists do already, but it would be great all around if *everyone* understood it.

–Q