Comment on Great Explanations

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:38:30 GMT

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.

Discuss