man-made science -- paul westmeyer narst meeting - l970 p23-25 Science-Children: readings in elementary science education -- RG Good, editor - Wm. C. Brown, Co - 1972

it might be argued that mathematics is nonexistent until man "makes it up." The product is an abstraction, not necessarily related to the real world as we know it. How about science?
Is science invented or discovered?
Are there really electrons, or are they merely an invention to satisfy an explanation made up my man?
Do ideas in science change as the ideas of scientists change? What is science?
consider the following ideas carefully for they provide a somewhat different answer to the question we are pursuing: what is science?

at 3:20 PM on December 2, l942, reaction in the world's first atomic pile became self-sustaining (chain reaction). It was a dramatic moment but Dr. Fermi and the others watching intently knew that it would work. Why did they know? They knew because the science which supported the physical structure, the pile was theirs ... they had made it up.

man began to construct this science long ago. It was given a very special building block in ... l9l2 when Rutherford invented the heavy unitary nucleus, and another in ... l932 when Chadwick proposed a particle called the neutron. In l939 Han and Strassman observed that barium was present in the residue of experiments in which uranium was bombarded with neutrons.

lise Meitner attempted mathematical analysis of these experiments and found that the total of the atomic masses of the residual elements was less than the atomic mass of uranium. She and her nephew, O.R. Frisch, put this information and Einstein's l905 theory equating mass and energy together and made up the explanation that under neutron bombardment uranium nuclei split, forming two nuclei each approximately half the mass of the uranium nucleus, and in the process some of the nuclear mass is converted into energy [ thus: mass + mass lost = mass + energy ]

finally, Fermi and Bohr conceived the idea that neutrons are emitted during nuclear fission, and hence a chain reaction is possible. [ these neutrons or 'bullets' set off other fissions; which emit neutrons ... which ... chain reaction ]. All that remained was precise calculations and trial of the experiment, but they knew it would work, they had made it all up.

yes, the nuclear atom is an invention of man and furthermore, in a recent publication Dewey Larson has said, "... when the arguments in favor of the nuclear atom concept, developed fifty years ago on the basis of the very limited amount of experimental information, are re-examined in the light of the immense store of factual knowledge now available they collapse completely and leave the theory entirely without support. Larson has published at least four books in which he insists that many of our present scientific explanations are in need of total change ... not revision, total change.

everybody knows that mathematics is a man-made device but they aren't so sure about science. Feynman who said ... "Mathematics is looking for patterns ... Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." He adds "... science is the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the race experience from the past." And finally, " ... you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing abut ... experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at."

"But," you say, "can't theories be proven?" Let me tell you a story.

Leyden note: here comes the multi-cultural aspect

the American Indians of a century and a half ago observed that meat boiled in water high up on a mountain was not tender and edible as it was when cooked at the base of the mountains. Furthermore, the Indians observed that the tenderness decreased steadily as the meat was boiled at locations farther and farther up the mountain. So they invented an explanation which was that evil spirits prevent meat from cooking and the density of evil spirits increases as altitude increases. This was a plausible and probably useful explanations.

As a matter of fact, it could be "proven."

All they had to do was clamp a lid on the cooking pot atop the mountain and SEAL it [ this device is called a pressure cooker ]. This would keep out evil spirits and the meat should be well done. (It would be.) So you can't prove a thing .. you can only not disprove it.

Leyden note:
How is this boiling / cooking phenomena explained by the white man? Physicists talk about 'air particles' -- invisible oxygen molecules and nitrogen molecules creating air pressure. There are less air particles atop the mountain, so there is less air pressure pushing on the surface of the water. So the water molecules need less energy to get pushed into the atmosphere (that is -- "boil").

Is this "more correct" than the indian version ? Both use the SAME CAUSE --- something that is invisible and can't be 'proven.' The native amerians use invisible 'evil spirits' and the scientists talk about invisible molecules.

Hmm. Logical standoff?

Remember - air is a MIXTURE of two main gases, so it is incorrect to use the term air molecules. Oxygen molecules exist. Nitrogen molecules exist - but no air molecules.

so ... if science is man-made then anyone can make up science. Oh that doesn't mean that just any explanation for a set of observations is all right, but it does mean that any explanation that fits the observation, is useful for predictions, and stands the test of trail should not be discouraged.

can students actually make up science? Let me tell you another story ... this one of a chemistry student ..

this girl was given a cylindrical "black box," l8" long x 2" in diameter, and told me to make a mental model to explain its behavior.

Leyden note: a-ha -- our 'think tube activity'

She rotated the box and found that something inside seemed to roll in this direction. She tipped the box and the thing inside slid and struck the end of the box. She tipped it the other way and the things slide again but seemed to hit that end of the box much more quickly than it hit the end of the first tip. She repeated these observations several times and then the teacher took the box away, saying, "That's all the data you have to work with."

she pondered the observations for a time and finally proposed her explanation: "The box contains a cylinder which is shorter on one end that the other."

did it explain? It seemed to.
testable? No. The box was no longer available to her.
real? Hardly.
invention? You bet!

questions to ponder

do you think Einstein's l905 theory might someday be found wrong? why?

are there theories in science that are correct for all time? Can you identify some that would probably fall into that category?

try to make up a different explanation for the "black box" experiment. Is yours better? Why?