I’m still not sure what you mean by “real understanding,” but all I’m trying to claim in the post above is that readable but non-technical explanations of scientific concepts and theories from people like Brian Greene and Richard Dawkins can be helpful.
My original point was only about physics, not about evolution, and I have already written that there is an important difference between the accessibility of these two for lay readers. So by dragging evolution into the discussion again, you are obscuring the issue.
They have improved not just my ability to guess the teacher’s password, but also my ability to have more accurate anticipations in ways that help me achieve my goals. Is that something you actually think is “impossible”?
Yes, I do think that math-free popular books about modern physics (by which I mean QM, relativity, and the more advanced fields that use them) cannot give the reader any such ability.
A physicist with good writing skills could easily write a book full of completely nonsensical pop-scientific “explanations” of relativity and QM (let alone cosmology etc.), and there would be no way for non-expert readers to notice that something’s wrong (unless they noticed that it’s explicitly contradicting something they previously read elsewhere). In contrast, someone who studies with full understanding from a real textbook will notice the errors of the author purely from internal evidence, since these errors will stick out blatantly in the otherwise smooth and clear logical flow of exposition. There we see the fundamental difference between real explanations and fake explanations.
If so, what is your response to the examples wedrifid and I gave?
Some of these examples are about using classical physics to improve on folk-physical intuitions or gain insight that can be based on folk physics or simple Newtonian physics. Such insights can indeed be gained without much (or even any) math, so I admit my claims should be qualified to exempt such cases. Note however that the original context was about advanced non-classical fields of physics, which are the subject of the overwhelming majority of pop-scientific texts, some of which you originally cited as supposedly “great explanations.”
As for the example of the limited speed of light, it’s a completely isolated rule that stands outside of any systematic understanding. It’s as if you claimed that you can understand Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory without knowing vector calculus, and then supported it by arguing that your non-mathematical understanding enables you to predict that bad things will happen if you touch uninsulated high-voltage lines. Yes, it is a correct rule that makes correct and practically useful predictions, but it’s completely isolated and learned by heart—and there is no way to connect it with some more general framework for understanding physical phenomena without learning real (i.e mathy) physics. [*] Similarly, unless you have real mathy knowledge of relativity, your knowledge of this particular fact about the limited speed of light is just an isolated fact, which is not integrated with any broader and deeper understanding of physics.
[] -- *Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I would say that there are in fact such ways. Some people manage to develop amazing intuitive understanding of electromagnetic phenomena without any math or formalism at all, and sometimes their intuitions will be more accurate than the products of laborious number-crunching by experts. However, such understanding is about hands-on technical practice, and it’s radically different from anything that can result from reading pop-science.
My original point was only about physics, not about evolution, and I have already written that there is an important difference between the accessibility of these two for lay readers. So by dragging evolution into the discussion again, you are obscuring the issue.
Huh? I didn’t bring up evolution again. I mentioned Richard Dawkins, but not evolution, and the ‘great explanation’ from Dawkins that I list above is in physics (rainbows), not biology.
BTW, are the physics ones the only ones you object to? Are you still mostly on board with the project of tracking down good, engaging explanations of, say, biological and psychological concepts and theories?
math-free popular books about modern physics… cannot give the reader any such ability [to have more accurate anticipations in ways that help them achieve their goals]
You’ve offered enough exemptions now for your claim (speed of light, classical physics, and probably others) that I now understand that we agree more than initially seemed to be the case. Still, I think there are examples of math-free popular explanations of modern physics that can give readers like me the ability to have more accurate anticipations in ways that help us achieve our goals.
I gave a few examples but you didn’t accept them.
I’m tempted to drop the discussion for now — unless you strongly object?
Huh? I didn’t bring up evolution again. I mentioned Richard Dawkins, but not evolution, and the ‘great explanation’ from Dawkins that I list above is in physics (rainbows), not biology.
My mistake—I didn’t realize you were alluding to Dawkins talking about physics.
BTW, are the physics ones the only ones you object to? Are you still mostly on board with the project of tracking down good, engaging explanations of, say, biological and psychological concepts and theories?
I think I have already explained clearly enough that it depends on the concrete topic in question. Some technical and scientific topics can be explained in a non-mathematical way that increases the understanding of smart lay readers. Others however can’t, and attempts to do so will end up as sheer confusion and fake explanations. Modern physics just happens to be in the latter category.
You’ve offered enough exemptions now for your claim (speed of light, classical physics, and probably others) that I now understand that we agree more than initially seemed to be the case.
Then you understand wrongly. I haven’t budged one millimeter about the worthlessness of pop-scientific “explanations” of modern physics of the sort you cited initially. There is a fundamental difference between, on one hand, direct improvements on folk-physical intuition and simple facts memorized in isolation, and on the other hand, real understanding of complex and non-intuitive theories of modern physics.
I’m tempted to drop the discussion for now — unless you strongly object?
I have no problem with that. I think what I’ve said so far should be clear enough.
My original point was only about physics, not about evolution, and I have already written that there is an important difference between the accessibility of these two for lay readers. So by dragging evolution into the discussion again, you are obscuring the issue.
Yes, I do think that math-free popular books about modern physics (by which I mean QM, relativity, and the more advanced fields that use them) cannot give the reader any such ability.
A physicist with good writing skills could easily write a book full of completely nonsensical pop-scientific “explanations” of relativity and QM (let alone cosmology etc.), and there would be no way for non-expert readers to notice that something’s wrong (unless they noticed that it’s explicitly contradicting something they previously read elsewhere). In contrast, someone who studies with full understanding from a real textbook will notice the errors of the author purely from internal evidence, since these errors will stick out blatantly in the otherwise smooth and clear logical flow of exposition. There we see the fundamental difference between real explanations and fake explanations.
Some of these examples are about using classical physics to improve on folk-physical intuitions or gain insight that can be based on folk physics or simple Newtonian physics. Such insights can indeed be gained without much (or even any) math, so I admit my claims should be qualified to exempt such cases. Note however that the original context was about advanced non-classical fields of physics, which are the subject of the overwhelming majority of pop-scientific texts, some of which you originally cited as supposedly “great explanations.”
As for the example of the limited speed of light, it’s a completely isolated rule that stands outside of any systematic understanding. It’s as if you claimed that you can understand Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory without knowing vector calculus, and then supported it by arguing that your non-mathematical understanding enables you to predict that bad things will happen if you touch uninsulated high-voltage lines. Yes, it is a correct rule that makes correct and practically useful predictions, but it’s completely isolated and learned by heart—and there is no way to connect it with some more general framework for understanding physical phenomena without learning real (i.e mathy) physics. [*] Similarly, unless you have real mathy knowledge of relativity, your knowledge of this particular fact about the limited speed of light is just an isolated fact, which is not integrated with any broader and deeper understanding of physics.
[] -- *Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I would say that there are in fact such ways. Some people manage to develop amazing intuitive understanding of electromagnetic phenomena without any math or formalism at all, and sometimes their intuitions will be more accurate than the products of laborious number-crunching by experts. However, such understanding is about hands-on technical practice, and it’s radically different from anything that can result from reading pop-science.
Huh? I didn’t bring up evolution again. I mentioned Richard Dawkins, but not evolution, and the ‘great explanation’ from Dawkins that I list above is in physics (rainbows), not biology.
BTW, are the physics ones the only ones you object to? Are you still mostly on board with the project of tracking down good, engaging explanations of, say, biological and psychological concepts and theories?
You’ve offered enough exemptions now for your claim (speed of light, classical physics, and probably others) that I now understand that we agree more than initially seemed to be the case. Still, I think there are examples of math-free popular explanations of modern physics that can give readers like me the ability to have more accurate anticipations in ways that help us achieve our goals.
I gave a few examples but you didn’t accept them.
I’m tempted to drop the discussion for now — unless you strongly object?
My mistake—I didn’t realize you were alluding to Dawkins talking about physics.
I think I have already explained clearly enough that it depends on the concrete topic in question. Some technical and scientific topics can be explained in a non-mathematical way that increases the understanding of smart lay readers. Others however can’t, and attempts to do so will end up as sheer confusion and fake explanations. Modern physics just happens to be in the latter category.
Then you understand wrongly. I haven’t budged one millimeter about the worthlessness of pop-scientific “explanations” of modern physics of the sort you cited initially. There is a fundamental difference between, on one hand, direct improvements on folk-physical intuition and simple facts memorized in isolation, and on the other hand, real understanding of complex and non-intuitive theories of modern physics.
I have no problem with that. I think what I’ve said so far should be clear enough.
At least there is one thing in this conversation with respect to which everyone is in agreement!