ISEN-ASTC-L Archives

Informal Science Education Network

ISEN-ASTC-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jennifer Tillman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informal Science Education Network <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 13 May 2006 11:09:08 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (121 lines)
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Elegance in science is a somewhat subjective quality.  Part of the
definition comes from the application of Occam's Razor -- elegant theories
are those that provide the simplest explanation, conceptually or
mathematically, for the widest range of observable phenomena.  I do not know
whether elegance can really be considered neccessary for the sciences, but I
would certainly think it desirable.  Aside from the emotional/esthetic
appeal that easily described theories have for the practitioners of science,
they provide a much more accessible and user-friendly entry-point for the
laity.

To give an example -- my favorite professor once challenged our modern
physics class to defend the heliocentric view of orbital mechanics by asking
whether or not a Ptolemaic reference frame could be established that would
accurately predict all empirical astronomical data.  The answer is, of
course, that it can be done -- as Einstein so eloquently demonstrated, there
is no such thing as a preferred reference frame, and you can view any object
as being at rest that you wish.  However, the equations of planetary and
solar motion that emerge from assuming that the earth is stationary get
horrendously ugly, very quickly  (remember epicycles?) and so the Ptolemaic
view is an inelegant one, while the Copernican theory is very elegant
indeed -- it accurately (except, obviously, for relativistic effects)
depicts the motions of planets, meteors, comets and other bodies with a
minimum of equations, and the essence of it can be easily conveyed to a
six-year-old, something that I do not believe can be said for the geocentric
model.

Anybody else have any thoughts?

Jennifer Tillman -- AmeriCorps
Community Education Coordinator
ph: (541) 482-6767 ext. 30
email: [log in to unmask]

"God doesn't play dice with the universe"
      -Einstein
"Don't tell God what He can and can't do."
      -Neils Bohr
"Not only does God play dice with the universe, sometimes He throws them
where you can't see the spots!"
      -Stephen Hawking



-----Original Message-----
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ruth Goehmann
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Elegant Science


ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
****************************************************************************
*

Should I ask Kristi?

-----Original Message-----
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonah Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: The Elegant Science


ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology
Centers Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
************************************************************************
*****

To dovetail into something else...

Stephen Uzzo sez:

"Natural selection is important not because of all
the "facts" about living things (or evidence of formerly living things)
we accumulate, but rather how elegant it is as a process for change and
adaptation and how universally applicable it is to living systems from
intracellular metabolic processes up to clades and beyond...."

So, what exactly do you mean by "elegant"? And whatever it may mean, is
it really an important facet of science?

I read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe". I liked it even though I
didn't understand a few parts. (OK, OK! More than a few!) He talked
about how string theory was elegant, and that was one reason some people
think it's on the right track - but admitted that there's no reason the
universe couldn't operate under an inelegant system.

Just curious,
Jonah Cohen

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org. To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L
list, send the message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2