On BEING WRONG and BEING DEAD WRONG in Science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do we learn science sequentially topic by topic, more or less the way the subjects developed? Why not forget about all the wrong theories and just start teaching all the right theories as we know them now? For example, forget Newton, start with Einstein. Dispense with points and lines and Euclid. Start with the most general topology and geometry on any space. In fact a friend of mine would like to do just that. Introduce category theory (an underpinning of modern algebra) to children so that they learn the right stuff in the right way. From the beginning.

For me, learning only the "final" theory is a bit boring, even if it were possible in principle. Half the fun for me is in learning the history - the human story, as Barkha Dutt might tell us - of the progress of these ideas.

Besides WRONG theories are not all wrong the same way. Some are truly wrong and are not to be touched again except for occasional historical forays. Other wrong theories may be wrong in principle but are marvelously useful to build things around us.

As an example of the second type of wrong theories, the most fascinating example is Newtonian theories of mechanics and gravitation. In absolute terms, and in principle, Newtonian Mechanics is completely wrong, though to detect that it is wrong one has to do experiments involving very small distances, or very high speeds ( or both ) or with very heavy objects ( like our sun). But still it is THE THEORY to be used to calculate trajectory of the Tomahawk missiles and also to send the Mars orbiter to revolve around a Martian orbit.

On the other hand, there was a theory in the seventeenth century that was a great unifier, in that it gave, over a hundred years, a very successful unified theory of many chemical processes. Unification is a grand old theme in science. In chemical science this theory provided - after almost 2000 years of the theory of Fire, Earth, Air, Water - one of the most important theoretical basis for unification of many experimental facts including the explanation of similarities of the smelting process in the extraction of many different metals such as iron, tin or copper. This - the theory of burning and combustion - was heralded as THE MOST IMPORTANT REVOLUTIONARY THEORY of its time.

And yet, it was wrong. Not only just wrong. But oh SO WRONG, that in another 100 years science and technology would have no use of it in any future work whatsoever.

Newton - a brilliant life- lives on in science on a daily basis.

Stahl - another brilliant life - is truly dead to science.

[PS: Oh Yes. The Name of the Useless. Phlogiston Theory]

Archimdes - Eureka!!

Most people who go through high school education almost anywhere in the world are probably aware of Archimedes principle with regards to sinking and floating in fluid - water for example.

The fact that he was an outstanding mathematician is not talked about so much - I wonder why. Perhaps the fear of mathematics has some thing to do with it.

Anyway, I came across a book called "Archimedes - What Did He Do Beside Cry Eureka?" by Sherman Stein.



It is a delightful book - should be accessible to a bright high school student who loves geometry. It should be also a must read for all high school teachers of maths and science. In deed if a maths or science teacher is unwilling to read this book, perhaps s/he is not appropriate for teaching such subjects.

A Mathematician's World

Read a wonderful book entitled "The Housekeeper and The Professor" by Yoko Ogawa. A very touching book, if a bit surreal, and takes the reader into the purity of world of mathematics.

I wonder how the author came up with the theme and the plot!

Leelvati's daughters - Here and Elsewhere

Recently, thanks to an Indian Academy of Sciences Initiative, a book "Lilavati's Daughters: The Women Scientists of India" has been brought out. The online version can be seen here.

It is a very interesting collection of essays on and by Women scientists working in India. There are close to one hundred articles, and all autobiographical except for nine. The oldest scientist mentioned is Anandibai Joshi (1865 - 1887). It is a heart rending story of determination, struggle, spirit of inquiry and of a brilliant career cut short by untimely death. The article on her can be seen here.

This reminds me of another great woman scientist who died 118 years ago today on 10th February 1891. She also worked and pursued her interest in Mathematics against tremendous odds. She was a Russian mathematician - in fact the first woman in modern Europe to gain a doctorate in mathematics, the first to join the editorial board of a scientific journal, and the first to be appointed professor of mathematics. You can read about Sofia Kovalevskaya here and here. The stories of Sofia Kovalevskaya (1850 - 1891) and Anandibai Joshi are not only set in the same timeframe but have such similarities in the nature of their struggles as to make you wonder what it is in human nature and human societies that has systematically made it so hard across societies and time frames for women to do the simple task of pursuing an interest in science.

At the end of the day, it is the urge to do science that could not be suppressed. "Say what you know, do what you must, come what may." - was the motto Sofia Kovalesvakay's mentioned on one of her mathematics papers. and it is the same spirit that comes through in most of the articles in Leelavati's daughters working in another part of the globe.

how much milk can a cat drink?

While helping my child with her maths homework, I came across this worked out example in the book:

"A vessel had 4 1/4 litres of milk. Out of it, a cat drank 3/8 litres. How much milk was left in the vessel?"

I do have a cat in my house now, and I realized suddenly that a cat cannot possibly drink 3/8 litres of milk - certainly not in one go. Perhaps over a whole day, it can drink about 1/2 a cup or about 1/10th of a litre.

What is the connection with science all around - do you ask?

Well, an important aspect of science is doing reasonable estimations, rough calculations that are close to what the final result is going to be. But the education system does not stress this at the primary/middle/high school level. If it did, class V math book would not have a cat drinking 3/8 litres of milk.

Perhaps, it could say 10 cats drank 3/8th litres. That would sound a little strange, would it not? But that is precisely the point - both formulation and solution of scientific problems have certain "reasonableness" to them, else it would be a life less unreal problem. Much as math is portrayed to be but which it does not have to be.

Shining Stars and Hans Bethe

Arthur Miller, in his autobiography, "Timebends," quoted the great physicist Hans Bethe - who discovered how stars shine - as saying, "Well, I come down in the morning and I take up a pencil and I try to think. ..."

Here is another quote from Bethe: "I am not a philosopher."

Perhaps it was a philosophical sense of wonder that made him pursue how stars shine and other mysteries of nature, but certainly it was the scientist that tried to find answers to these by taking up a pencil and trying to think......

Aren't we glad he did? And the great thing is so can each one of us, for

Science is Everywhere.

Does not matter if many of us do not turn out to be Bethe, the joy of trying to understand is reward enough ......