Narrative:
This episode is WAY AWESOME and deals with believing science, not because you understand it, but because it is not observable. This is a continuation because they are still talking about what observable means at the microscopic level. They have agreed at this point that there are changes in displacement that are observable at the macroscopic level, but Christine is trying to get them to agree about what observable and measurable mean at the microscopic level. The main player is Chris, who talks about what it means to be observable or measurable on the macro vs. micro level. It is fascinating to me because she is thinking about imagination and theories as the first step of science.
GESTURES AND INTONATION: The use of voice changes and emphasis in this video are also really interesting. Pay attention to the gestures and the intonation of Chris and others. I just love it!
THE CONFRONTATION: When Chris says, "We can't really observe it (the micro level), but well, so we just take it on faith" others react strongly. BUT, Chris sneaked in her comment about faith and seemed to know that an explosive reaction was going to happen. Her grin after people reacted looked the same as a grin after someone says, "You're Mama's sitting around the house!" (Amy that was for you.) Additionally, while Jennifer and Christine react big time, Tomme doesn't react at all, she was just waiting her turn to share and appears not to have heard what Chris said.
Then Jennifer says that if the changes are happening, that we can either measure it or we will measure it. It seems that Chris thinks that the statement of we "will measure it" is the same as taking it as faith. I think she might be right. What do you think?
Episode: E2 120809 1003 Mic3-1.Observable.2.Subtitles
Transcript:
[00:00:00.00] Chris: It's easy for us to put it on the macro because we can SEEEEE it.
Christine: Right, right.
Tomme: We exist in the macro.
[00:00:06.13] Chris: Yah, and but when we're thinking of micro we're not going to, I mean like, we can, So we do that, that, that thing right? Like okay, if, if I do this and there's an energy change, then like measured energy change then I can say that observable position change. There's something you can measure, like it went two inches above "beh" (gestures). You know there's like, so then you have to then go, oh, but if I go in my imagination, and go on this micro level, we're going to say that that, that there's that displacement, and that, you know sometimes we can measure it, but it takes ( ) huge amount, and we can't really observe it but, well, so we take it on faith.
[00:00:53.24] Tomme: Well, what I picture-
Jennifer: WHAT?
Chris: OH MY GOD! (smiling)
Christine: What did you just saaaay?!
Jennifer: NOOOOO!!! (gestures)
[00:00:59.00] Jennifer: I would argue if it's happening, we either have already developed a way to observe slash measure it, or we're going to.
Tomme: Or we're going to.
Chris: Oh so it's, what is that? It's theories (points to head) that we're going to, (gestures forward) we're, cause someone can- It's theorized, (gestures forward) and we're going to, so I mean it's up there (points to head).
Jennifer: I think that there are ways of measuring energy transfer that we don't know about.
This video makes me smile.
ReplyDeleteSomething I'm wondering is what Chris means by "take it on faith" and what this suggests about her views of the nature of science. I can imagine that she's 'realizing' that science takes imagination; and that sometimes we _can't_ see things that happen, we only suppose they do (and have good reason for doing so). Or I can imagine that she's suggesting that scientists have _no_ evidence for microscopic processes -- after all, how could they? Those feel like very different ways of thinking about her statement. Do you have a sense for which one is meant (or maybe something else altogether you think she means)?
I think, based solely on listening to this video, that the former is more aligned with my interpretation of what she is saying. She gives an example of the LHC - how someone thought there was "x" and then built a huge thing to prove that "x" existed, without knowing, but instead using their imagination to come up with the idea. She does emphasize the idea of theory before experiment in these examples, so I don't get the impression that she is talking about no evidence for microscopic stuff - only that the theory comes, then you look for the evidence.
ReplyDelete