Can we be certain about something that happened half a million years ago?
Keith S. Taber
What was going on in Java when Homo erectus lived there? (Image by Kanenori from Pixabay )
About half a million years ago a hominid, of the Homo erectus species, living in Java took a shell and deliberately engraved a mark on it. Now, I was not there when this happened, so my testimony is second hand, but I can be confident about this as I was told by a scientist that she was sure that this definitely happened.
"…we knew for sure that it must have been made by Homo erectus"
But how can we be so sure about something alleged to have occurred so long ago?
"A long time ago [if not] in a galaxy far, far away…." the skull of a specimen of Homo erectus (Image by Mohamed Noor from Pixabay ) [Was this an inspiration for the Star Wars stormtrooper helmet?]
I doubt Fifi would be convinced.1 Fifi was a Y12 student (c.16 years old) interviewed as part of the LASAR project who had reservations about palaeontology as it did not provide certain scientific knowledge,
"I like fossils though, I think they're interesting but I don't think I'd really like [working as a palaeontologist]…I don't think you could ever really know unless you were there… There'll always be an element of uncertainty because no matter how much evidence you supply there will always be, like, doubt because of the fact that you were never there…there'll always be uncertainty."
Learners can have alternative conceptions of the nature of science, just as much as they often do for forces or chemical bonding or plant nutrition. They often think that scientific knowledge has been 'proved', and so is certain (e.g., Taber, Billingsley, Riga & Newdick, 2015). An area like palaeontology where direct observation is not possible may therefore seem to fall short of offering genuine scientific knowledge.
The uncertain nature of scientific knowledge
One key feature of the nature of science is that it seeks to produce general or theoretical knowledge of the natural world. That is, science is not just concerned with providing factual reports about specific events but with developing general accounts that can explain and apply to broad categories of objects and events. Such general and theoretical knowledge is clearly more useful than a catalogue of specific facts – which can never tell us about the next occasion or what might happen in hypothetical situations.
However, a cost of seeking such applicable and useful knowledge is that it can never be certain. It relies on our ways of classifying objects and events, the evidence we have collected so far, our ability to spot the most important patterns -and the deductions this might support. So, scientific knowledge is always provisional in the sense that it is open to revision in response to new data, or new ways of thinking about existing data as evidence.
Yet often reports of science in the media give the impression that science has made absolute discoveries. Some years ago I wrote about the tendency in science documentaries for the narrative to be driven by links that claimed "...this could only mean…" when we know that in science the available data always underdetermines theory (Taber, 2007). Or, to put it another way, we could always think up other ways of explaining the data. Sometimes these alternatives might seem convoluted and unlikely, but if we can suggest a possible (even when unconvincing) alternative, then the available data can never "only mean" any one particular proposed interpretation.
The scientist concerned was J.C.A (José) Joordens who is Professor in Hominin Paleoecology and Evolution, at Maastricht University. Prof. Joordens holds the Naturalis Dubois Chair in Hominin Paleoecology and Evolution. The reference to Dubois relates to the naturist responsible for finding a so-called 'missing link' in the chain of descent to modern humans,
"One of the most exciting episodes of palaeoanthropology was the find of the first transitional form, the Pithecanthropus erectus, by the Dutchman Eugène Dubois in Java during 1891-1892. …Besides the human remains, Dubois made a large collection of vertebrate fossils, mostly of mammals, now united in the so-called Dubois Collection."
de Vos, 2004
The Java man species, Pithecanthropus erectus (an upright ape/mokey-man), was later renamed as Homo erectus, the upright man.
On an edition of BBC Radio 4's 'In Our Time' taking 'Homo erectus' as its theme, Prof. Joordens explained how some fossil shells collected by Dubois as part of the context of the hominid fossils had remained in storage for over a century ("The shells had been, well, shelved…"!), before a graduate student set out to photograph them all for a thesis project. This led to the discovery that one of the shells appeared to have been engraved.
This could only mean one thing…
This is what Prof. Joordens told the host, Melvyn Bragg,
"One shell that had a very strange marking that we could not understand how it ended up there…
It was geometric, like a W, and this is of course something that animals don't produce. We had to conclude that it must have been made by Homo erectus. And it must have been a very deliberate marking because of, we did experimental research trying to replicate it, and then we actually found it was quite hard to do. Because, especially fresh shells, they have a kind of organic exterior, and it's hard to push some sharp objects through and make those lines, so that was when we knew for sure that it must have been made by Homo erectus."
Prof. José Joordens talking on 'In Our Time'
We may consider this claim to be composed of a number of components, such as:
There is a shell with some 'very strange' markings
The shell was collected in Java in the nineteenth century
The shell had the markings when first collected
The markings were not caused by some natural phenomenon
The markings were deliberate not accidental
The markings were made by a specimen of Homo erectus
A sceptic might ask such questions as
How can we be sure this shell was part of the original collection? Could it have been substituted by mistake or deliberately?
How do we know the marks were not made more recently? perhaps by someone in the field in Java, or during transit form Java to the Netherlands, or by someone inspecting the collection?
Given that even unusual markings will occur by chance occasionally, how can we be certain these markings were deliberate? Does the mark really look like a 'W 'or might that be an over-interpretation. 2
And so forth.
It is worth bearing in mind that no one noticed these markings in the field, or when the collection was taken back to the Netherlands – indeed Prof. Joordens noted she had carried the shell around in her backpack (could that have been with an open penknife?) unaware of the markings
Of course, Prof. Joordens may have convincing responses to many of these questions – but a popular radio show is not the place to detail all the argument and evidence. Indeed, I found a report in the top journal Nature ('Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving') by Prof. Joordens and her team 3, claiming,
"One of the Pseudodon shells, specimen DUB1006-fL, displays a geometric pattern of grooves on the central part of the left valve [*]. The pattern consists, from posterior to anterior, of a zigzag line with three sharp turns producing an 'M' shape, a set of more superficial parallel lines, and a zigzag with two turns producing a mirrored 'N' shape. Our study of the morphology of the zigzags, internal morphology of the grooves, and differential roughness of the surrounding shell area demonstrates that the grooves were deliberately engraved and pre-date shell burial and weathering"
It may seem most likely that the markings were made by a Homo erectus, as no other explanation so far considered fits all the data, but theory is always under-determined – one can never be certain another scenario might be found which also fits the known facts.
Strictly, Prof. Joordens' contradicts herself. She claims the marks are "something that animals don't produce" and then claims an animal is responsible. She presumably meant that no non-hominid animal makes such marks. Even if we accept that (and, as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 4), can we be absolutely certain some other hominid might not have been present in Java at the time, marking the odd shell? As the 'In Our Time' episode discussed, Homo erectus often co-existed with other hominids.
Probably not, but … can we confidently say absolutely, definitely, not?
As Fifi might say: "I don't think you could ever really know unless you were there".
My point is not that I think Prof. Joordens is wrong (she is an expert, so I think she is likely correct), but just that her group cannot be absolutely certain. When Prof. Joordens says she knows for sure I assume (because she is a scientist, and I am a scientist) that this means something like "based on all the evidence currently available, our best, and only convincing, interpretation is…" Unfortunately lay people often do not have the background to insert such provisos themselves, and so often hear such claims literally – science has proved its case, so we know for sure. Where listeners already think scientific knowledge is certain, this misconception gets reinforced.
Meanwhile, Prof. Joordens continues her study of hominids in Java in the Studying Homo erectus Lifestyle and Location project (yes, the acronym is SHeLL).
Joordens, J., d'Errico, F., Wesselingh, F. et al. Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature 518, 228-231 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13962
Taber, K. S., Billingsley, B., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2015). English secondary students' thinking about the status of scientific theories: consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced explanations of aspects of the natural world – or just 'an idea someone has'. The Curriculum Journal, 1-34. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2015.1043926
Notes
1 As is usual practice in such research, Fifi is an assumed name. Fifi gave permission for data she contributed to the research to be used in publications on the assumption it would be associated with a pseudonym. (See: 'Using pseudonyms in reporting research'.)
2 No one is suggesting that the hominid deliberately marked the shell with a letter of the Roman alphabet, just that s/he deliberately made a mark that represented a definite and deliberate pattern. Yet human beings tend to spot patterns in random data. Could it just be some marks that seem to fit into a single pattern?
3 Josephine C. A. Joordens, Francesco d'Errico, Frank P. Wesselingh, Stephen Munro, John de Vos, Jakob Wallinga, Christina Ankjærgaard, Tony Reimann, Jan R. Wijbrans, Klaudia F. Kuiper, Herman J. Mücher, Hélène Coqueugniot, Vincent Prié, Ineke Joosten, Bertil van Os, Anne S. Schulp, Michel Panuel, Victoria van der Haas, Wim Lustenhouwer, John J. G. Reijmer & Wil Roebroeks.
4 At one time there was no evidence of 'noble' gases reacting. At one time there was no evidence of ozone depletion. At one time there was no evidence of superconductivity. At one time there was no evidence that the blood circulates around the body. At one time there was no evidence of any other planet having moons. At one time there was no evidence of protons being composed of even more fundamental particles. At one time there was no evidence of black holes. At one time there was no evidence that smoking tobacco was harmful. At one time there was no evidence of … [fill in your choice scientific discovery!]
Scientific literacy and desk accessories in science fiction
Keith S. Taber
Is the principle of conservation of mass that is taught in school science falsified all the time?
I am not really a serious sci-fi buff, but I liked Star Trek (perhaps in part because it was the first television programme I got to see in colour 1) and I did enjoy Blakes7 when it was broadcast by the BBC (from 1978-1981).
Logo of the BBC television series 'Blakes7' with (a) home desk equipment or (b) manual control lever for the most advanced spaceship in the galaxy (Image by Francis Ray from Pixabay).
Blakes7 was made with the same kind of low budget production values of Dr Who of the time. Given that space scenes in early episodes involved what seemed to be a flat image of a spacecraft moving across a star field with no sense of depth or perspective (for later series someone had built a model), and in one early episode the crew were clearly given angle-poise lamps to control the craft, it was certainly not a case of 'no expense spared'. So, it was never quite clear if the BBC budget had also fallen short of a possessive apostrophe in the show title credits or Blakes7 was to be read in some other way.
After all, it was not made explicit who was part of Blake's 7 if that was what the title meant, and no one referred to "Blake's 7" in the script (perhaps reflecting how the doctor in Dr Who was not actually called Dr Who?).
The Blakes7 team on the flight desk of the Liberator – which was the most advanced spaceship in the galaxy (and was, for plot purposes, conveniently found drifting in space without a crew) – at least until they forgot to clean the hull once too often and it corroded away while they were on an away mission.
Blake's group was formed from a kind of prison break and so Blake was something of a 'rough-hero' – but not as much as his sometime unofficial lieutenant, sometime friend, sometime apparent rival, Avon, who seemed to be ruled by self-interest (at least until the script regularly required some act of selfless heroism from him). 'Rough-heroes' are fictional characters presented in the hero role but who have some traits that the audience are likely to find morally questionable if not repugnant.
As well as Blake (a rebel condemned as a traitor, having 'recovered' from brainwashing-supported rehabilitation to rebel again) and Avon (a hacker convicted of a massive computer fraud intended to make himself extremely rich) the rest of the original team were a smuggler, a murderer and a petty thief, to which was added a terrorist (or freedom fighter if you prefer) picked up on an early mission. That aside, they seemed an entirely reasonable and decent bunch, and they set out to rid the galaxy of 'The Federation's tyrannical oppression. At least, that was Blake's aspiration even if most of his companions seemed to see this as a stop-gap activity till they had decided on something with more of a long-term future.
At the end of one season, where the fight with the Federation was temporarily put aside to deal with an intergalactic incursion, Blake went AWOL (well, intergalactic wars can be very disruptive) and was assumed dead/injured/lost/captured/?… for much of the remaining run without affecting the nature of the stories too much.
Among its positive aspects for its time were strong (if not exactly model) roles for women. The main villain, Servalan, was a woman – Supreme Commander of the Federation security forces (and later Federation president).
As the ruthless Supreme Commander of the Federation security forces, Servalan got to wear whatever she liked (a Kid Creole, or Mel and Kim, look comes to mind here) and could insist her staff wore hats that would not upstage hers
In Blake's original team (i.e., 7?), his pilot is a woman. (Reflecting other SciFi series, the spacecraft used by Blakes7 require n crew members to operate effectively, where n is an integer that varies between 0 and 6 depending on the specific plot requirements of an episode.) In a later series, after Avon has taken over the role of 'ipso facto leader-among-equals', the group recruits a female advanced weapons designer/technologist and a female sharpshooter.
The Blakes7 team later in the run. (Presumably they are checking the monitor and having a quick recount.) Was Soolin (played by Glynis Barber, far right) styled as a subtle reference to the 'Seven Samurai'?
When I saw Blakes7 was getting a rerun recently I re-watched the series I had not seen since it was first aired. Despite very silly special effects, dodgy story-lines, and morally questionable choices (the series would make a great focus for a philosophy class) the interactions between the main characters made it an enjoyable watch.
But, it is not science
Of course, the problem with science fiction is that it is fiction, not science. Star Trek may have prided itself on seeking to at least make the science sound feasible, but that is something of an outlier in the genre.
Egrorian and his young assistant Pinder (unfortunately prematurely aged somewhat by a laboratory mishap) show Avon and Vila around their lab.
This is clear, for example, in an episode called 'Orbit' where Avon discuses the tachyon funnel, an 'ultimate weapon', with Egrorian, a renegade scientist. Tachyons are hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of light. The theory of special relatively suggests the speed of light is the theoretical maximum speed anything can have, but some other theories suggest tachyons may exist in some circumstances. As always in science, theories that are widely accepted as our current best understanding of some aspect of nature (e.g., relativity) are still open to modification or replacement if new evidence is found that suggests this is indicated.
In the Blakes7 universe, there seemed to be a surprisingly high frequency of genius scientists/engineers who had successfully absconded from the tyrannical and paranoid Federation with sufficient resources to build private research facilities on various obscure deserted planets. Although these bases are secret and hidden away, and the scientists concerned have normally been missing for years or even decades, it usually transpires that the Blakes7 crew and the Federation manage to locate any particular renegade scientist during the same episode.
This is part of the exchange between this particular flawed genius scientist and our flawed and reluctant 'rough hero', Kerr Avon:
Egrorian: You've heard of Hoffal's radiation?
Avon: No.
Ah… Hoffal had a unique mind. Over a century ago he predicted most of the properties that would be found in neutron material.
Neutron material?
Material from a neutron star. That is a… a giant sun which has collapsed and become so tightly compressed that its electrons and protons combine, making neutrons.
I don't need a lecture in astrophysics. [But presumably the scriptwriter felt the audience would need to be told this.]
When neutrons are subjected to intense magnetic force, they form Hoffal's radiation. Poor Pinder [Egrorian's lab. assistant] was subjected for less than a millionth of a second. He aged 50 years in as many seconds. …
So neutrons are part of the tachyon funnel.
Um, eight of them … form the core of the accelerator.
Now, for anyone with any kind of science background such dialogue stretches credibility. Chadwick discovered the neutron in everyday matter in 1932, so the neutron's properties could be explored without having to obtain samples from a neutron star – which would certainly be challenging. When bound in nuclei, neutrons (which are electrically neutral, thus the name, and so not usually affected by magnetic fields) are stable.
Thinking at the scale of a neutron
However, any suspension of disbelief (which fiction demands, of course) was stretched past breaking point at the end of this exchange. Not only were the generally inert neutrons the basis of a weapon that could destroy whole worlds – but the core of the accelerator was formed of, not a neutron star, nor a tonne of 'neutron matter', but eight neutrons (i.e., one for each member of Blake's 7 with just a few left over?)
That is, the intensely destructive beam of radiation that could destroy a planet from a distant solar system was generated by subjecting to a magnetic field: a core equivalent to (the arguably less interesting) half of a single oxygen atomic nucleus.
Warning – keep this away from strong magnetic fields if you value your planet! (Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay )
Now free neutrons (that is, outside of an atomic nuclei – or neutron star) are unstable, and decay on a timescale of around a quarter of an hour (that is, the half-life is of this order – following the exponential decay familiar with other kinds of radioactivity), to give a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The energy 'released' in this process is significant on the scale of a subatomic particle: 782 343 eV or nearly eight hundred thousand eV.
Eight hundred thousand seems a very large number, but the unit here is electron volt, a unit used for processes at this submicroscopic scale. (An eV is the amount of work that is done when one single electron is moved though a potential difference of 1v – this is about 1.6 x10-19 J). In the more familiar units of joules, this is about 1.25 x 10-13 J. That is,
0.000 000 000 000 125 J
To boil enough water at room temperature to make a single cup of tea would require about 67 200 J. 2 So, if the energy from decaying neutrons were used to boil the water, it would require the decay of about
538 000 000 000 000 000 neutrons.3
That is just to make one cup of tea, so imagine how many more neutrons would have to decay to provide the means to destroy a planet. Certainly, one would imagine,
more than 8.
E=mc2
Now since Einstein (special relativity, again), mass and energy have been considered to have an equivalence. It is commonly thought that mass can be converted to energy and the equation E=mc2 tells you how much of one would be converted to the other: how many J per kg or kg per J. (Spoiler alert – this is not quite right.)
In that way of thinking, the energy released by a free neutron when it decays is due to a tiny part of the neutrino's mass being converted to energy.
The neutron's mass defect
The mass (or so called 'rest mass') of a neutrino is about 1.67 x 10-27 kg. In the usual mode of decay the neutrino gives rise to a proton (which is nearly, but not quite, as heavy as a neutron), an electron (which is much lighter), and a neutrino (which is considered to have zero rest mass.)
Before decay
Rest mass / 10-31 kg
After decay
Rest mass / 10-31 kg
neutron
16 749.3
proton
16 726.2
electron
9.1
neutrino
–
total
16 749.3
16 735.3
[rest] mass defect in neutrino decay
So, it seems like some mass has disappeared. (And this is the mass sometimes said to have been converted into the released energy.) This might lead us to ask the question of whether Hoffal's discovery was a way to completely annihilate neutrons, so that instead of a tiny proportion of their mass being converted to energy as in neutron decay – all of it was.
Mass as latent energy?
However, when considered from the perspective of special relativity, it is not that mass is being converted to energy in processes such as neutron decay, but rather that mass and energy are considered as being different aspects of something more unified -'mass-energy' if you like. Energy in a sense carries mass, and mass in a sense is a manifestation of energy. The table above may mislead because it only refers to 'rest mass' and that does not tell us all we need to know.
When the neutron decays, the products move apart, so have kinetic energy. According to the principle of mass-energy equivalence there is always a mass equivalence of any energy. So, in relativity, a moving object has more mass than when it is at rest. That is, the 'mass defect' table shows what the mass would be if we compared a motionless neutron with motionless products, not the actual products.
The theory of special relativity boldly asserts that mass and energy are not the independent quantities they were once thought to be. Rather, they are two measures of a single quantity. Since that single quantity does not have its own name, it is called mass-energy, and the relationship between its two measures is known as mass-energy equivalence. We may regard c2 as a conversion factor that enables us to calculate one measurement from the other. Every mass has an energy-equivalent and every energy has a mass-equivalent. If a body emits energy to its surroundings it also emits a quantity of mass equivalent to that energy. The surroundings acquire both the energy and mass in the process.
Treptow, 2005, p.1636
So, rather than thinking mass has been converted to energy, it may be more appropriate to think that the mass of a neutron has a certain (latent) energy associated with it, and that, after decay, most of this energy is divided between products (according to their rest masses), but a small proportion has been converted to kinetic energy (which can be considered to have a mass equivalence).
So, whenever any process involves some kind of energy change, there is an associated change in the equivalent masses. Every time you boil the kettle, or go up in an elevator, there is a tiny increase of mass involved – the hot water is heavier than when it was cold; you are heavier than when you were at a lower level. When you lie down or burn some natural gas, there is a tiny reduction in mass (you weigh less lying down; the products of the chemical reaction weigh less than the reactants).
How much heavier is hot water?
Only in nuclear processes does the energy change involved become large enough for any change in mass to be considered significant. In other processes, the changes are so small, they are insignificant. The water we boiled earlier to make a cup of tea required 67 200J of energy, and at the end of the process the water would not just be hotter, but also heavier by about
0.000 000 000 000 747 kg
0r about 0.000 000 000 75 g. That is easy to calculate 4, but not so easy to notice.
Is mass conserved in chemical reactions?
On this basis, we might suggest that the principle of conservation of mass that is taught in school science is falsified all the time – or at least needs to be understood differently from how it is usually presented.
Type of reaction
Mass change
endothermic
mass of products > mass of reactants
exothermic
mass of products < mass of reactants
If we just consider the masses of the substances then mass is not conserved in chemical change
Yet, the discrepancies really are tiny – so tiny that in school examinations candidates are expected to pretend there is no difference. But, strictly, when (as an example) copper carbonate is heated in a crucible and decomposes to give copper oxide and carbon dioxide there is a mass decrease even if you could capture all the CO2. But it would not be measurable with our usual laboratory equipment – so, as far as chemistry is concerned, mass is conserved. 'To all intense and purposes' (even if not absolutely true) mass is always conserved in chemical reactions.
Mass is conserved overall
But actually, according to current scientific thinking, mass is always conserved (not just very nearly conserved), as long as we make sure we consider all relevant factors. The energy that allowed us to boil the kettle or be lifted in an elevator must have been provided from some source (which has lost mass by the same extent). In an exothermic chemical reaction there is an extremely slight difference of mass between the reactants and products, but the surroundings have been warmed and so have got (ever so slightly) heavier.
Type of reaction
Mass change
endothermic
energy (and equivalent mass) from the surroundings
exothermic
energy (and equivalent mass) to the surroundings
If we just consider the masses of the substances then mass does not seem to be conserved in chemical change
As Einstein himself expressed it,
"The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy."
Einstein, 1917/2015, p.59
Annihilate the neutrons!
So, if we read about how in particle accelerators, particles are accelerated to immense speeds, and collided, and so converted to pure energy we should be suspicious. The particles may well have been destroyed – but something else has now acquired the mass (and not just the rest mass of the annihilated particles, but also the mass associated with their high kinetic energy).
So, we cannot convert all of the mass of a neutron into energy – only reconfigure and redistribute its mass-energy. But we can still ask: what if all the mass of the neutron were to be converted into some kind of radiation that carried away all of its mass as high energy rays (perhaps Hoffal's radiation?)
Perhaps the genius scientist Hoffal, with his "unique mind", had found a way to do this (hm, with a magnetic field?) Even if that does not seem very feasible, it does give us a theoretical limit to the energy that could be produced by a process that converted a neutron into radiation.6 Each neutron has a rest mass of about
1.67 x 10-27 kg
now the conversion factor is c2 (where c is the speed of light, which is near enough 3 x 108 ms-1, so c2 =(3×108ms-1)2 , i.e., about 1017m2s-2), so that mass is equivalent to about 1.50 x 10-10 J 5 or,
0.000 000 000 150 J
Now that is a lot more energy than the 1.25 x 10-13 J released in the decay of a neutron,
0.000 000 000 150 000 J
>
0.000 000 000 000 125 J
and now we could in theory boil the water to make our cup of tea with many fewer neutrons. Indeed, we could do this by annihilating 'only' about 7
448 000 000 000 000 neutrons
This is a lot less neutrons than before, i.e.,
448 000 000 000 000 neutrons
< 538 000 000 000 000 000 neutrons
but it seems fair to say that it remains the case that the number of neutrons needed (now 'only' about 448 million million) is still a good deal more than 8.
448 000 000 000 000 neutrons
> 8 neutrons
So, if over 400 million million neutrons would need to be completely annihilated to make a single cup of tea, how much damage can 8 neutrons do to a distant planet?
A common learning difficulty
In any reasonable scenario we might imagine 8 neutrons would not be significant. This is worth emphasising as it reflates to a common learning difficulty. Quanticles such as atoms, atomic nuclei, neutrons and the like are tiny. Not tiny like specs of dust or grains of salt, but tiny on a scale where specs of dust and grains of salt themselves seem gigantic. The scales involved in considering electronic charge (i.e., 10-19C) or neutron mass (10-27 kg) can reasonably said to be unimaginatively small – no one can readily visualise the shift in scale going from the familiar scale of objects we normally think of as 'small', to the scale of individual molecules or subatomic particles.
Students therefore commonly form alternative conceptions of these types of entities (atoms, electrons, etc.) being too small to see, but yet not being so far beyond reach. And it is not just learners who struggle here. I have even heard someone on a national news programme put forward as an 'expert' make a very similar suggestion to Egrorian, in this case that a "couple of molecules" could be a serious threat to public health after the use of chemical nerve agent. This is a preposterous suggestion to a chemist, but was, I am sure, made in good faith by the international chemical weapons expert.
It is this type of conceptual difficulty which allows scriptwriters to refer to 8 neutrons as being of some significance without expecting the audience to simply laugh at the suggestion (even if some of us do).
It also explains how science fiction writers get away with such plot devices given that many in their audiences will readily accept that a few especially malicious molecules or naughty neutrons is a genuine threat to life.8 But that still does not justify using angle-poise lamps as futuristic spacecraft joysticks.
Jenna pilots the most advanced spacecraft in the galaxy
Works cited:
Einstein, A. (1917/2015). Relativity. The special and the general theory. (100th Anniversary ed.). Princeton: Princeton Univerity Press.
Treptow, R. S. (2005). E = mc2 for the Chemist: When Is Mass Conserved? Journal of Chemical Education, 82(11), 1636. doi:10.1021/ed082p1636
Notes:
1 To explain: For younger readers, television was first broadcast in monochrome (black and white – in effect shades of grey). My family first got a television after I started primary school – the justification for this luxury was that the teachers sometimes suggested programmes we might watch.
Colour television did not arrive in the UK till 1967, and initially it was only used for selected broadcasts. The first colour sets were too expensive for many families, so most people initially stayed with monochrome. This led to the infamous 'helpful' statement offered by the commentator of the weekly half-hour snooker coverage: "And for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink [ball] is next to the green". (While this is well known as a famous example of misspeaking, a commentator's blooper, those of a more suspicious mind might bear in mind the BBC chose snooker for broadcast in part because it might encourage more people to watch in colour.)
Snooker – not ideal viewing on 'black and white' television (Image by MasterTux from Pixabay )
My father had a part-time weekend job supervising washing machine rental collections (I kid you not, many people only rented such appliances in those days), to supplement income from his full time job, and this meant on Monday evenings after his day job he had to visit his part-time boss and report and they would go throughout the paperwork to ensure things tallied. I would go with him, and was allowed to watch television whilst they did this – it coincided with Star Trek, and the boss had a colour set!
2 Assuming water had to be heated from 20˚C to 100˚C, and the cup took 200 ml (200 cm3) of tea then the calculation is 4.2 x 80 x 200
4.2 J g-1K-1 is the approximate specific heat capacity of water.
Changing these parameters (perhaps you have a small tea cup and I use a mug?) will change the precise value.
3 That is the energy needed divided by the energy released by each neutron: 67200 J ÷ 1.25 x 10-13 J/neutron = 537 600 000 000 000 000 neutrons
4 E=mc2
so m = E/c2 = 67 200 ÷ (3.00 x 108)2 = 7.47 x 10-13
5 E=mc2 = 1.67 x 10-27 x (3.00 x 108)2 = 1.50 x 10-10
6 Well, we could imagine that somehow Hoffal had devised a process where the neutrons somehow redirect energy provided to initially generate the magnetic field, and perhaps the weapon was actually an enormous field generator producing a massive magnetic field that the funnel somehow converted into a beam (of tachyons?) that could pass across vast amounts of space without being absorbed by space dust, remaining highly collimated, and intense enough to destroy a world.
So, perhaps the neutrons are analogous to the core of a laser.
I somehow think it would still need more than 8 of them.
7 That is the energy needed divided by the energy released by each neutron: 67200 J ÷ 1.50 x 10-10 J/neutron = 4.48 x 1014 neutrons
8 Of course molecules are not actually malicious and neutrons cannot be naughty as they are inanimate entities. I am not anthropomorphising, just alliterating.
There might be a couple of molecules left in the Salisbury area. . ."
Expert interviewed on national news
The subject of chemical weapons is not to be taken lightly, and is currently in the news in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the concern that the limited progress made by the Russian invaders may lead to the use of chemical or biological weapons to supplement the deadly enough effects of projectiles and explosives.
Organophosphorus nerve agents (OPNA) were used in Syria in 2013 (Pita, & Domingo, 2014), and the Russians have used such nerve agents in illicit activities – as in the case of the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury. Skripal had been a Russian military intelligence officer who had acted for the British (i.e., as a double agent), and was convicted of treason – but later came to the UK in a prisoner swap and settled in Salisbury (renown among Russian secret agents for its cathedral). 1
Salisbury, England – a town that featured in the news when it was the site of a Russian 'hit' on a former spy (Image by falco from Pixabay )
These substances are very nasty,
OPNAs are odorless and colorless [and] act by blocking the binding site of acetylcholinesterase, inhibiting the breakdown of acetylcholine… The resulting buildup of acetylcholine leads to the inhibition of neural communication to muscles and glands and can lead to increased saliva and tear production, diarrhea, vomiting, muscle tremors, confusion, paralysis and even death
Kammer, et al., 2019, p.119
So, a substance that occurs normally in cells, but is kept in check by an enzyme that breaks it down, starts to accumulate because the enzyme is inactivated when molecules of the toxin bind with the enzyme molecules stopping them binding with acetylcholine molecules. Enzymes are protein based molecules which rely for their activity on complex shapes (as discussed in 'How is a well-planned curriculum like a protein?' .)
Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter. It allows signals to pass across synapses. It is important then that acetylcholine concentrations are controlled for nerves to function (Image source: Wikipedia).
Acetylcholinesterase is a protein based enzyme that has an active site (red) that can bind and break up acetylcholine molecules (which takes about 80 microseconds per molecule). The neurotransmitter molecule is broken down into two precursors that are then available to be synthesised back into acetylcholine when appropriate. 2
Toxins (e.g., green, blue) that bind to the enzyme's active site block it from breaking down acetylcholine.
A need to clear up after the release of chemical agents
The effects of these agents can be horrific – but, so of course, can the effects of 'conventional' weapons on those subjected to aggression. One reason that chemical and biological weapons are banned from use in war is their uncontrollable nature – once an agent is released in an environment it may remain active for some time – and so hurt or kill civilians or even personnel from the side using those weapons if they move into the attacked areas. The gases used in the 1912-1918 'world' war, were sometimes blown back towards those using them when the wind changed direction.
This is why, when small amounts of nerve agents were used in the U.K. by covert Russian agents to attack their targets, there was so much care put into tracing and decontaminating any residues in the environment. This is a specialised task, and it is right that the public are warned to keep clear of areas of suspected contamination. Very small quantities of some agents can be very harmful – depending upon what we mean by such relative terms as 'small'. Indeed, two police officers sent to the scene of the crime became ill. But what does 'very small quantities' mean in terms of molecules?
A recent posting discussed the plot of a Blakes7 television show episode where a weapon capable of destroying whole planets incorporated eight neutronsas a core component. This seemed ridiculous: how much damage can eight neutrons do?
But, I also pointed out that, sadly, not all those who watched this programme would find such a claim as comical as I did. Presumably, the train of thought suggested by the plot was that a weapon based on eight neutrons is a lot more scary than a single neutron design, and neutrons are found in super-dense neutron stars (which would instantly crush anyone getting too near), so they are clearly very dangerous entities!
A common enough misconception
This type of thinking reflects a common learning difficulty. Quanticles such as atoms, atomic nuclei, neutrons and the like are tiny. Not tiny like specs of dust or grains of salt, but tiny on a scale where specs of dust and grains of salt themselves seem gigantic. The scales involves in considering electronic charge (i.e., 10-19C) or neutron mass (10-27 kg) can reasonably be said to be unimaginatively small – no one can readily visualise the shift in scale going from the familiar scale of objects we normally experience as small (e.g., salt grains), to the scale of individual molecules or subatomic particles.
People therefore commonly form alternative conceptions of these types of entities (atoms, electrons, etc.) being too small to see, but yet not being so far beyond reach. It perhaps does not help that it is sometimes said that atoms can now be 'seen' with the most powerful microscopes. The instruments concerned are microscopes only by analogy with familiar optical microscopes, and they produce images, but these are more like computer simulations than magnified images seen through the light microscope. 3
It is this type of difficulty which allows scriptwriters to refer to eight neutrons as being of some significance without expecting the audience to simply laugh at the suggestion (even if some of us do).
An expert opinion
Although television viewers might have trouble grasping the insignificance of a handful of neutrons (or atoms or molecules), one would expect experts to be very clear about the vast difference in scale between us (people for example) and them (nanoscopic entities of the molecular realm). Yet experts may sometimes be stretched beyond their expertise without themselves apparently being aware of this – as when a highly qualified and experienced medical expert agreed with an attorney that the brain sends out signals to the body faster than the speed of light. If a scientific expert in a high profile murder trial can confidently make statements that are scientifically ridiculous then this underlines just how challenging some key scientific ideas are.
For any of us, knowing what we do not know, recognising when we are moving outside out of areas where we have a good understanding, is challenging. Part of the reason that student alternative conceptions are so relevant to science learning is that a person's misunderstanding can seem subjectively to be just as well supported, sensible, coherent and reasonable as a correct understanding. Where a teacher themself has an alternative conception (which sometimes happens, of course) they can teach this with as much enthusiasm and confidence as anything they understand canonically. Expertise always has limitations.
A chemical weapons expert
I therefore should not have been as surprised as I was when I heard a news broadcast featuring an expert who was considered to know about chemical weapons refer to the potential danger of "a couple of molecules". This was in relation to the poisoning by Russian agents of the Salisbury residents,
"During an interview on a BBC Radio 4 news programme (July 5th, 2018), Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who brands himself as one of the world's leading chemical weapons experts, warned listeners that there may be risks to the public due to residue from the original incident in the area. Whilst that may have been the case, his suggestion that "we are only talking about molecules here. . .There might be a couple of molecules left in the Salisbury area. . ." seemed to suggest that even someone presented to the public as a chemistry expert might completely fail to appreciate the submicroscopic scale of individual molecules in relation to the macroscopic scale of a human being."
Now Colonel de Bretton-Gordon is a visiting fellow at Magdalene College Cambridge, and the College website describes him as "a world-leading expert in Chemical and Biological weapons". I am sure he is, and I would not seek to underplay the importance of decontamination after the use of such agents; but if someone who has such expertise would assume that a couple of molecules of any substance posed a realistic threat to a human being with its something like 30 000 000 000 000 cells, each containing something like 40 000 000 molecules of protein (to just refer to one class of cellular components), then it just underlines how difficult it is to appreciate the gulf in scale between molecules and men.
Regarding samples of nerve agents, they may be deadly even in small quantities, but that still means a lot of molecules.
Novichok cocktails
The attacks in Salisbury (from which the intended victims recovered, but another person died in nearby Amesbury apparently having come into contact with material assumed to have been discarded by the criminals), were reported to have used 'Novichok', a label given to group of compounds.
"Based on analyses carried out by the British "Defence Science and Technology Laboratory" in Porton Down it was concluded that the Skripals were poisoned by a nerve agent of the so-called Novichok group. Novichok … is the name of a group of nerve agents developed and produced by Russia in the last stage of the Cold War."
Carlsen, 2019, p.1
Testing of toxins is often based on the LD50 – which means finding the dose that has an even chance of being lethal. This is not an actual amount, as clearly the amount of material that is needed to kill a large adult will be more than that to kill a small child, but the amount of the toxin needed per unit mass of victim. Although no doubt these chemicals have been directly tested on some poor test specimens of non-consenting small mammals, such information is not in the public domain.
Indeed, being based on state secrets, there is limited public data on Novichok and related agents. Carlsen (2019) estimates the LD50 for oral administration of 9 compounds in the Novichok group and some closely related agents to vary between 0.1 to 96.16 mg/kg.
Carlsen suggest the most toxic of these compounds is one known as VX. VX was actually first developed by British Scientists, although almost equivalent nerve agents were later developed elsewhere, including Russia.
'Chemical structures of V-agents.' (Figure 2 from Nepovimova & Kuca, 2018 – subject to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/) n.b. This figure shows more than a couple of molecules of nerve agent – so might this be a lethal dose?
Carlsen then argues that the actual compounds in Novachok are probably less toxic than XV, which might explain…
"…why did the Skripals not die following expose to such high potent agents; just compare to the killing of Kim Jong-nam on February 13, 2017 in Kuala Lumpur International Airport, where he was attacked by the highly toxic VX, and died shortly after."
Carlsen, 2019, p1
So, for the most sensitive agent, known as XV (LD50 c. 0.1 mg/kg), a person of 50 kg mass would it is estimated have a 50% chance of being killed by an oral dose of 0.1 x 50 mg. That is 5 mg or 0.005 g by mouth. A single drop of water is said to have a volume of about 0.05 ml, and so a mass of about 0.05 g. So, a tenth of a drop of this toxin can kill. That is a very small amount. So, if as little as 0.005 g of a nerve agent will potentially kill you then that is clearly a very toxic substance.
The molecular structure of XV is given in the figure above taken from Nepovimova and Kuca (2018). These three structures shown appear to be isomeric – that is the three molecules are structural isomers. They would have the same empirical formula (and the same molecular mass).
Chemical shorthand
This type of structural formula is often used for complex organic molecules as it is easy for experts to read. It is one of many special types of representation used in chemistry. It is based on the assumption that most organic compounds can be understood as if substituted hydrocarbons. (They may or may not be derived that way – this is jut a formalism used as a thinking tool.) Hydrocarbons comprise chains of carbon atomic cores bonded to each other, and with their other valencies 'satisfied' by being bonded to hydrogen atomic cores. These compounds can easily be represented by lines where each line shows the bond between two carbon atomic cores. The hydrogen centres are not shown at all, but are implicit in the figure (they must be there to 'satisfy' the rules of valency – i.e., carbon centres in a stable structures nearly always have four bonds ).
Anything other than carbon and hydrogen is shown with elemental symbols, and in most organic compounds these other atomic centres take up on a minority of positions in the structure. So, for compounds, such as the 'VX' compounds, these kinds of structural representations are a kind of hybrid, with some atomic centres shown by their elemental symbols – but others having to be inferred.
From the point of view of the novice learner, this form of abstract representation is challenging as carbon and hydrogen centres need to be actively read into the structure (whereas an expert has learnt to do this automatically). But for the expert this type of representation is useful as complex organic molecules can contain hundreds or thousands of atomic centres (e.g., the acetylcholinesterase molecule, as represented above) and structural formulae that show all the atomic centres with elemental symbols would get very crowded.
So, below I have annotated the first version of XV:
The VX compound seems to have a molecular mass of 267
This makes the figure much more busy, but helps me count up the numbers of different types of atomic centres present and therefore work out the molecular mass – which, if I had not made a mistake, is 267. I am working here with the nearest whole numbers, so not being very precise, but this is good enough for my present purposes. That means that the molecule has a mass of 267 atomic mass units, and so (by one of the most powerful 'tricks' in chemistry) a mole of this compound, the actual substance, would have a mass of 267g.
The trick is that chemists have chosen their conversion factor between molecules and moles, the Avogadro constant of c. 6.02 x 1023, such that adding up atomic masses in a molecule gives a number that directly scales to grammes for the macroscopic quantity of choice: the mole. 5
So, if one had 267 g of this nerve agent, that would mean approximately 6.02 x 1023 molecules. Of course here we are talking about a much smaller amount – just 0.005 g (0.005/267, about 0.000 02 moles) – and so many fewer molecules. Indeed we can easily work out 0.005 g contains something like
(0.005 / 267) x 6.02 x 1o23 = 11 273 408 239 700 374 000 = 1×1019 (1 s.f.)
That is about
10 000 000 000 000 000 000 molecules
So, because of the vast gulf in scale between the amount of material we can readily see and manipulate, and the individual quanticle such as a molecule, even when we are talking about a tiny amount of material, a tenth of a drop, this still represent a very, very large number of molecules. This is something chemistry experts are very aware of, but most people (even experts in related fields) may not fully appreciate.
The calculation here is approximate, and based on various estimates and assumptions. It may typically take about 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 molecules of the most toxic Novichok-like agent to be likely to kill someone – or this estimate could be seriously wrong. Perhaps it takes a lot more, or perhaps many fewer, molecules than this.
But even if this estimate is out by several orders of magnitude and it 'only' takes a few thousand million million molecules of XV for a potential lethal dose, that can in no way be reasonably described as "a couple of molecules".
It takes very special equipment to detect individual quanticles. The human retina is in its own way very sophisticated, and comes quite close to being able to detect individual photons – but that is pretty exceptional. As a rule of thumb, when anyone tells us that a few molecules or a few atoms or a few ions or a few electrons or a few neutrons or a few gamma rays or… can produce any macroscopic effect (that we can see, feel, or notice) we should be VERY skeptical.
Kammer, M., Kussrow, A., Carter, M. D., Isenberg, S. L., Johnson, R. C., Batchelor, R. H., . . . Bornhop, D. J. (2019). Rapid quantification of two chemical nerve agent metabolites in serum. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 131, 119-127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2019.01.056
Nepovimova, E., & Kuca, K. (2018). Chemical warfare agent NOVICHOK – mini-review of available data. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 121, 343-350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2018.09.015
Pita, R., & Domingo, J. (2014). The Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Conflict. Toxics, 2(3), 391-402.
1 Two men claiming to be the suspects whose photographs had been circulated by the British Police, and claimed by the authorities here to be Russian military intelligence officers, appeared on Russian television to explain they were tourists who had visited Salisbury sightseeing because of the Cathedral.
2 According to the RCSB Protein Data Bank website
"Acetylcholinesterase is found in the synapse between nerve cells and muscle cells. It waits patiently and springs into action soon after a signal is passed, breaking down the acetylcholine into its two component parts, acetic acid and choline."
Of course, it does not 'wait patiently': that is anthropomorphism.
3 We might think it is easy to decide if we are directly observing something, or not. But perhaps not:
"If a chemist heats some white powder, and sees it turns yellow, then this seems a pretty clear example of direct observation. But what if the chemist was rightly conscious of the importance of safe working, and undertook the manipulation in a fume cupboard, observing the phenomenon through the glass screen. That would not seem to undermine our idea of direct observation – as we believe that the glass will not make any difference to what we see. Well, at least, assuming that suitable plane glass of the kind normally used in fume cupboards has been used, and not, say a decorative multicoloured glass screen more like the windows found in many churches. Assuming, also, that there is not bright sunlight passing through a window and reflecting off the glass door of the fume cupboard to obscure the chemist's view of the powder being heated. So, assuming some basic things we could reasonably expect about fume cupboards, in conjunction with favourable viewing conditions, and taking into account our knowledge of the effect of plane glass, we would likely not consider the glass screen as an impediment to something akin to direct observation.
Might we start to question an instance of direct observation if instead of looking at the phenomenon through plane glass, there was clear, colourless convex glass between the chemist and the powder being heated? This might distort the image, but should not change the colours observed. If the glass in question was in the form of spectacle lenses, without which the chemist could not readily focus on the powder, then even if – technically – the observations were mediated by an instrument, this instrument corrects for a defect of vision such that our chemist would feel that direct observation is not compromised by, but rather requires, the glasses.
If we are happy to consider the bespectacled chemist is still observing the phenomenon rather than some instrumental indication of it, then we would presumably feel much the same about an observation being made with a magnifying glass, which is basically the same technical fix as the spectacles. So, might we consider observation down a microscope as direct observation? Early microscopes were little more than magnifying glasses mounted in stands. Modern compound microscopes use more than one lens. A system of lenses (and some additional illumination, usually) reveals details not possible to the naked eye – just as the use of convex spectacles allow the longsighted chemist to focus on objects that are too close to see clearly when unaided.
If the chemist is looking down the microscope at crystal structures in a polished slice of mineral, then, it may become easier to distinguish the different grains present by using a Polaroid filter to selectively filter some of the light reaching the eye from the observed sample. This seems a little further from what we might normally think of as direct observation. Yet, this is surely analogous to someone putting on Polaroid sunglasses to help obtain clear vision when driving towards the setting sun, or donning Polaroid glasses to help when observing the living things at the bottom of a seaside rock pool on a sunny day when strong reflections from the surface prevent clear vision of what is beneath.
A further step might be the use of an electron microscope, where the visual image observed has been produced by processing the data from sensors collecting reflections from an electron beam impacting on the sample. Here, conceptually, we have a more obvious discontinuity although the perceptual process (certainly if the image is of some salt crystal surface) may make this seem no different to looking down a powerful optical microscope. An analogy here might be using night-vision goggles that allow someone to see objects in conditions where it would be too dark to see them directly. I have a camera my late wife bought me that is designed for catching images of wildlife and that switches in low light conditions to detecting infrared. I have a picture of a local cat that triggered an image when the camera was left set up in the garden overnight. The cat looks different from how it would appear in day-light, but I still see a cat in the image (where if the camera had taken a normal image I would not have been able to detect the cat as the image would have appeared like the proverbial picture of a 'black cat in a coal cellar'). Someone using night-vision goggles considers that they see the fox, or the escaped convict, not that they see an image produced by electronic circuits.
If we accept that we can see the cat in the photograph, and the surface details of crystal grains in the electron microscope image, then can we actually see atoms in the STM [scanning tunneling microscope] image? There is no cat in or on my image, it is just a pattern of pixels that my brain determines to represent a cat. I never saw the cat directly (I was presumably asleep) so I have no direct evidence there really was a cat if I do not accept the photograph taken using infrared sensors. I believe there are cats in the world, and have seen uninvited cats in my garden in daylight, and think the camera imaged one of them at night. So it seems reasonable I am seeing a cat in the image, and therefore I might wonder if it is reasonable to doubt that I can also see atoms in an STM image.
One could shift further from simple sensory experience. News media might give the impression that physicists have seen the Higgs boson in data collected at CERN. This might lead us to ask: did they see it with their eyes? Or through spectacles? Or using a microscope? Or with night-vision goggles? Of course, they actually used particle detectors.
Feyerabend suggests that if we look at cloud chamber photographs, we do not doubt that we have a 'direct' method of detecting elementary particles …. Perhaps, but CERN were not using something like a very large cloud chamber where they could see the trails of condensation left in the 'wake' of a passing alpha particle, and that could be photographed for posterity. The detection of the Higgs involved very sophisticated detectors, complex theory about the particle cascades a Higgs particle interaction might cause, and very complex simulations to allow for all kinds of issues relating to how the performance of the detectors might vary (for example as they age) and how a signal that might be close to random noise could be identified…. No one was looking at a detector hoping to see the telltale pattern that would clearly be left by a Higgs, and only a Higgs. In one sense, to borrow a phrase, 'there's nothing to see'. Interpreting the data considered to provide evidence of the Higgs was less like using a sophisticated microscope, and more like taking a mixture of many highly complex organic substances, and – without any attempt to separate them – running a mass spectrum, and hoping to make sense of the pattern of peaks obtained.
4 That is not to suggest that one should automatically assume that one molecule of a toxin can only ever damage one protein molecule somewhere in one body cell. After all, one of the reasons that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons, which used to be used as propellants in all kinds of spray cans for example) were so damaging to the ozone 'layer' was because they could initiate a chain reaction.
In reactions that involve free radicals, each propagation step can produce another free radical to continue the reaction. Eventually two free radicals are likely to interact to terminate the process – but that might only be after a great many cycles, and the removal of a great many ozone molecules from the stratosphere. However, even if one free radical initiated the destruction of many molecules of ozone, that would still be a very small quantity of ozone, as molecules are so tiny. The problem was of course that a vast number of CFC molecules were being released.
5 So one mole of hydrogen gas, H2, is 2g, and so forth.
"why the brain can't multitask is still very much a topic of considerable debate"
Prof. Paul Dux
Is it true that brains cannot multitask? I think mine can. (Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)
The podcast was an episode of the ABC radio programme All in the Mind (not to be confused with the BBC radio programme All in the Mind, of course) entitled 'Misadventures in multitasking'
"All in the Mind is an exploration of the mental: the mind, brain and behaviour — everything from addiction to artificial intelligence." An ABC radio programme and podcast.
The argument against multitasking
Now mutlitasking is doing several things at once – such as perhaps having a phone conversation whilst reading an unrelated email. Some aspects of the modern world seem to encourage this – such as being queued on the telephone (as when I was kept on hold for over an hour waiting to get an appointment at my doctor's surgery – I was not going to just sit by the phone in the hope I would eventually get to the top of the queue). Similarly 'notifications' that seek to distract us from what we are doing on the computer, as if anything that arrives is likely to be important enough for us to need immediate alerting, add little to the sum of human happiness.1
Now I have heard the argument against multitasking before. The key is attention. We may think we are doing several things at once, but instead of focusing on one activity, completing, it, then shifting to another, what multitaskers actually do is continuously interrupt their focus on one activity to refocus attention on the another. The working memory has limited capacity (this surely is what limits our ability to reflectively multitask?), and we can only actually focus on one activity at a time, so multitasking is a con – we may think we are being more productive but we are not.
Now, people do tire, and after, say 45 minutes at one task it may be more effective to break, do something unrelated, and come back to your work fresh. If you are writing, and you break, and take the washing out of the machine and hang it up to dry, and make a cup of tea, and then come back to your writing fifteen or twenty minutes later, this is likely to be ultimately more productive than just ploughing on. You have been busy, not just resting, but a very different kind of activity, and your mind (hopefully) is refreshed. If you have been at your desk for 90 minutes without a break, then go for a walk, or even a quick lie down.
That however, is very different from doing your writing, as you check your email inbox, and keep an eye on a social media feed, and shop online. You can only really do one of those things at a time and if you try to multitask you are likely to quickly tire, and make mistakes as you keep interrupting your flow of concentration. (So, if you have been doing your writing, and you feel the need to do something else, give yourself a definite period of time to completely change activity, and then return fully committed to the writing.)
Now, I find that line of argument very convincing and in keeping my with own experience. (Which is not to say I always follow my own advice, of course.) Yet, I still thought Prof. Dux was wrong. And, indeed, there is one sense in which I would like to think deliberate reflective multitasking is not counterproductive.
If your brain cannot multitask you'd perhaps better hope it focuses on breathing
The brain is complex…
This is a short extract from the programme,
Paul Dux: Why the brain can't multitask is still very much a topic of considerable debate because we have these billions of neurons, trillions of synaptic connections, so why can't we do two simple things at once?
Sana Qadar: This is Professor Paul Dux, he's a psychologist and neuroscientist at the University of Queensland. He takes us deeper into what's going on in the brain.
Paul Dux: A lot of people would say it's because we have these capacities for attention. The brain regions that are involved in things like attention are our lateral prefrontal cortex. You have these populations of neurons that respond to lots of different tasks and multiple demands. That of course on one hand could be quite beneficial because it means that we are able to learn things quickly and can generalise quickly, but maybe the cost of that is that if we are doing two things at once in close temporal proximity, they try to draw on the same populations of neurons, and as a result leads to interference. And so that's why we get multitasking costs.
Sana Qadar: Right, so that's why if you are doing dishes while chatting to a friend, a dish might end up in the fridge rather than the cupboard where it's supposed to go.
Paul Dux: That's right, exactly.
Paul Dux talking to Sana Qadar who introduces 'All in the mind'
Now I imagine that Prof. Dux is an expert, and he certainly seemed authoritative. Yet, I sensed a kind of concept-creep, that led to a category error, here.
A category error
A category error is where something is thought of or discussed as though a member of an inappropriate class or category. A common example might be gender and sex. At one time it was widely assumed that gender (feminine-masculine) was directly correlated to biological sex (female-male) so terms were interchangeable. It is common to see studies in the literature which have looked for 'sex differences' when it seems likely that the researchers have collected no data on biological sex.
Models that suggest that the 'particles' (molecules, ions, atom) in a solid are touching encourage category errors among learners: that such quanticles are like tiny marbles that have a definite surface and diameter. This leads to questions such as whether on expansion the particles get larger or just further apart. (Usually the student is expected to think that the particles get further apart, but it is logically more sensible to say they get larger. But neither answer is really satisfactory.)
If someone suggested that a mushroom must photosynthesise because that is how plants power their metabolism then they would have made a category error. (Yes, plants photosynthesise. However, a mushroom is not a plant but a fungus, and fungi are decomposers.)
The issue here, to my mind (so to speak) was the distinction between brain (a material object) and conscious mind (the locus of subjective experience). Whilst it is usually assumed that mind and brain are related (and that mind may arise, emerge from processes in the brain) they may be considered to relate to different levels of description. So, mind and brain are not just different terms for the same thing.
Mind might well arise from brain, but it is not the same kind of thing. So, perhaps the notion of 'tasks' applies to minds, not brains? (Figure from Taber, 2013)
So, it is one thing to claim that the mind can only be actively engaged in one task at a time, but that is not equivalent to suggesting this is true of the brain that gives rise to that mind.2
Prof. Dax seemed to be concerned with the brain:
"the brain…billions of neurons, trillions of synaptic connections… brain regions…lateral prefrontal cortex…populations of neurons"
Yet it seems completely unfounded to claim that human brains do not multitask as we surely know they do. Our brains are simultaneously processing information from our eyes, our ears, our skin, our muscles, etc. This is not some kind of serial process with the brain shifting from one focus to another, but is parallel processing, with different modules doing different things at the same time. Certainly, we cannot give conscious attention to all these inputs at once, so the brain is filtering and prioritising which signals are worth notifying to head office (so to speak). We are not aware of most of this activity – but then that is generally the case with our brains.
The brain controls the endocrine system. The brain stem has various functions, including regulating breathing and heart rate and balance. If the brain cannot multitask we had perhaps better hope it focuses on breathing, although even then I doubt we would survive for long based on that activity alone.
Like the proverbial iceberg, most of our brain activity takes place below the waterline, out of conscious awareness. This is not just the physiological regulation – but a lot of the cognitive processing. So, we consolidate memories and develop intuitions and have sudden insights because our brains are constantly (but preconsciously) processing new data in the light of structures constructed through past experience.
If you are reading, you may suddenly notice that the room has become cold, or that the doorbell is ringing. This is because although you were reading (courtesy of your brain), your brain was also monitoring various aspects of the environment to keep alert for a cue to change activity. You (as in a conscious person, a mind if you like) may not be able to do two things at once, so your reading is interrupted by the door bell, but only because your brain was processing sensory information in the background whilst it was also tracking the lines of text in your book, and interpreting the symbols on the page, and recalling relevant information to provide context (how that term was defined, what the author claimed she was going to demonstrate at the start of the chapter…). Your mind as the locus of your conscious experience cannot multi-task, certainly, and certainly "brain regions that are involved in…attention" are very relevant to that, but your brain itself is still a master of multitasking.
Me, mybrain, and I
So, if the brain can clearly multitask, can we say that the person cannot multitask?
That does not seem to work either. The person can thermoregulate, digest food, grow hair and nails, blink to moisten the eye etc., etc as they take an examination or watch a film. These are automatic functions. So, might we say that it is the body, not the person carrying out those physiological functions? (The body of the person, but not the person, that is.)
Yet, most people (i.e., persons) can hold a conversation as they walk along, and still manage to duck under an obstruction. The conversation requires our direct attention, but walking and swerving seem to be things which we can do on 'autopilot' even if not automatic like our heartbeat. But if there was a complex obstruction which required planning to get around, then the conversation would likely pause.
So, it is not the brain, the body, or even the person that cannot multitask, but more the focus of attention, the stream of consciousness, the conscious mind. Perhaps confusion slips in because these distinctions do not seem absolute as our [sic] sense of identify and embodiment can shift. I kick out (with my leg), but it is my leg which hurts, and perhaps my brain that is telling me it is hurting?
There is also one sense in which I regularly multitask. I listen to music a lot. This includes, usually, when I am reading. And, usually, when I am writing. I like to think I can listen to music and work. (But Prof. Dux may suggest this is just another example of how humans "are not actually good at knowing our own limitations".)
I like to think it usually helps. I also know this is not indiscriminate. If I am doing serious reading I do not play music with lyrics as that may distract me from my reading. But sometimes when I am writing I will listen to songs (and, unfortunately for anyone in earshot, may even find I am singing along). I also know that for some activities I need to have familiar music and not listen to something new if the music is to support rather than disturb my activity.
Perhaps I am kidding myself, and am actually shifting back and forth between
being distracted from my work by my music
and
focusing on my work and ignoring the music.
I know that certainly sometimes is the case, but my impression is that usually I am aware of the music at a level that does not interfere with my work, and sometimes the music both seems to screen out extraneous noise and even provides a sense of flow and rhythm to my thinking.
The human brain has two somewhat self-contained, but connected, hemispheres. (Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)
I suspect this has something to do with brain lateralisation and how, in a sense, we all have two brains (as the hemispheres are to some extent autonomous). Perhaps one of my hemispheres is quietly (sic) enjoying my music whilst the other is studiously working. I even fancy that my less verbal hemisphere is being kept on side by being fed music and so does not get bored (and so perhaps instigate a distracting daydream) whilst it waits for the other me, its conjoined twin, to finish reading or writing.
I may well be completely wrong about that.
Perhaps I am just as hopeless at multitasking with my propensity to attempt simultaneous scholarship and music appreciation as those people who think they can monitor social media whilst effectively studying.3 Perhaps it is just an excuse to listen to music when I should be working.
But even if that is so, I am confident my brain can multitask, even if I cannot.
Another email has arrived inviting me to talk at some medical conference on a specialism I cannot even pronounce?
A fiend of a friend of a friend has posted some update on social media that I can put into Google translate if I can be bothered?
Someone I do not recall seems to have a job anniversary?
Someone somewhere seems to have read something I once wrote (and I can find out who and where for a fee)?
Luckily I have been notified immediately as now I know this I will obviously no longer wish to complete the activity I was in the middle of.
2 One could argue that when a person is conscious (be that awake, or dreaming) one task the brain is carrying out is supporting that conscious experience. So, anything else a brain of a conscious person is doing must be an additional task. Perhaps, the problem is that minds carry out tasks (which suggests an awareness of purpose), but brains are just actively processing?
3 As a sporting analogy for the contrast I am implying here, there is a tradition in England of attending international cricket matches, and listening to the 'test match special' commentary (i.e., verbal) on the radio while watching (i.e. visual) the match. This seems to offer complementary enhancement of the experience. But I have also often seen paying spectators on televised football matches looking at their mobile phones rather than watching the match.
Taking advantage of good design? (Image by Ben Kerckx from Pixabay )
"A lot of researchers talk about this [neural system] called the care-giving system which is designed to help us care for our crying babies".
Assoc. Prof. Sara Konrath
The reference to the 'design' of a human neural system caught my attention. The reference was made by Dr Sara Konrath, Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University, who was interviewed for the BBC radio programme 'The Anatomy of Kindness'.
As a scientist, I found the reference to 'design' out of place, as it is a term that would often be avoided in a scientific account.
Mention of 'design' in the context of natural phenomena is of note because of the history of the idea, and its role in key philosophical questions (such as the nature of the world, the purpose of our lives, the origins of good and evil, and other such trifling matters).
The notion of design was very important in natural theology, which looked at 'the book of nature' as God's works, and as offering insight into God as creator. A key argument was that the intricacy of nature, and the way life seemed to encompass such complex interlinked systems that perfectly fitted together into an overarching ecology, could only be explained in terms of a designer who was the careful architect of the whole creation.
Perhaps the most famous example of this argument was that of William Paley who wrote an entire book (1802) making the case with a vast range of examples. He started with the now famous analogy of someone who found a pocket watch on crossing a heath. Had he kicked a stone on his trip, he would have thought little of how the stone came to be there – but a watch was a complex mechanism requiring a large number of intricate parts that had to be just the right size, made of the right kind of materials, and put together in just the right way to function. No reasonable person could imagine the watch had just happened to come about by chance events, and so, by a similar argument, how could anything as subtle and complex as a human body have just emerged by accident and not have been designed by some great intelligence?
If you came across this object lying on the ground, what might you infer? (Image by anncapictures from Pixabay)
Paley's book does a wonderful job of arguing the case, and, even if some of the examples look naive from two centuries on, it was the work of someone who knew a great deal about anatomy, and the natural history of his time, and knew how to build up 'one long argument'. 1 It must have seemed very convincing to many readers at the time (especially as most would have read it from a position of already assuming there was an omniscient and all-powerful creator, and that the types of animals and plants on earth had not substantially changed their forms since their creation).
Indeed, a fair proportion of the world's population would still consider the argument sound and convincing today. That is despite Charles Darwin having suggested, about half a century later, in his own long argument 1 that there was another alternative (than an intelligent designer or simply chance formation of complex organisms and ecosystems). The title of one of Richard Dawkin's most famous books, The Blind Watchmaker (1988), championing the scientific position first developed by Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallace) is a direct reference to Paley's watch on the heath.
The modern scientific view, supported by a vast amount of evidence from anatomy, genetics, paleontology, geology and other areas is that life evolved on earth over a vast amount of time from common ancestral unicellular organisms (which it is thought themselves evolved from less complex systems over a very long period).
Has science ruled out design?
This does not mean that science has completely ruled out the possibility that modern life-forms could have been designed. Science does rule out the possibility that modern organisms were created 'as is' (i.e., 'as are'), so if they were designed then the designer not only designed their forms, but also the highly complex processes by which they might evolve and the contingencies which made this possible. (That can be seen as an even greater miracle, and even stronger evidence of God's capabilities, of course.) What science does not do is to speculate on first causes which are not open to scientific investigation. 2
Many of the early modern scientists had strong religious convictions – including faith in an intelligent creator – and saw science as work that was totally in keeping with their faith, indeed often as a form of observance: a way of exploring and wondering at God's work. Science, philosophy and theology were often seen as strongly interlinked.
However, the usual expectation today is that science, being the study of nature, has no place for supernatural explanations. Scientists are expected to adopt 'methodological naturalism', which means looking for purely natural mechanisms and causes. 3
Arguments from design invoke teleology, the idea that nature has purpose. This makes for lazy science – as we do not need to seek natural mechanisms and explanations if we simply argue that
the water molecule was designed to be a shape to form hydrogen bonds, or that
copper is a good conductor because its molecular structure was designed for that purpose, or that
uranium is subject to radioactive decay because the nucleus of a uranium atom was designed to be unstable
Science has (and so a scientist, when doing her science, should have) nothing to say about the existence of a creator God, and has no view on whether aspects of the natural world might reflect such a creator's design; so arguments from design have no place in scientific accounts and explanations. This is why I honed in on the reference to design.
The evolution of empathy?
The reference was in relation to empathy. The presenter, Dr Claudia Hammond, asked rhetorically "empathy … how did it evolve?", and then introduced an interview clip: "Here's Sara Konrath, Associate Professor at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University in the U.S." This was followed by Dr Konrath stating:
"A lot of researchers talk about this thing called the care-giving system which is designed to help us care for our crying babies. So, think about a crying baby for a minute that is not your own. You are on an airplane, think about that. [She laughs] And probably what you are hoping for is that baby will stop crying, [Hammond: 'absolutely'], I guess.
We need to have a biological system that will make us feel compassion for that little crying baby and figure out what's wrong so we can make the baby feel better. So, there's a whole neural system that's called the care-giving system, that activates oxytocin which is a hormone that helps us to basically reduce stress and feel close and connected, and as you can imagine that would help us want to change that little nappy or whatever the baby needs. * And that same brain system doesn't seem to distinguish too much, well, you know, we can use that, that same system to care for other people in our lives that we know or even strangers, and even people who are different than us."
Assoc. Prof. Sara Konrath
Now, as pointed out above, accepting evolution (as the vast majority of natural scientists do) does not logically exclude design – but to be consistent it requires the design not only of the intended structure, but also of the entire natural system which will give rise to it. And evolution, a natural process, is open to scientific investigation, whereas claims of design rely on extra-scientific considerations. Moreover, as evolution is an ongoing process, one might suggest that references to 'this stage in the design-realisation process' might be more appropriate.
One way of explaining the apparent inconsistency here ("how did it evolve?"…"designed to help us") is to simply assume that I am being much too literal, as surely Dr Konrath was speaking metaphorically. We can talk about 'the design' of the kidney, or a flower, or of a cow's digestive system, meaning the structure, the layout, the assemblage – without meaning to suggest 'the design' had been designed. Although Dr Konrath referred to the neural system being designed, it is quite possible she was speaking metaphorically.
But can we beleive what we (think we) hear?
A listener can reasonably assume, from the editing of the programme, that Dr Konrath was asked, and was answering, the question 'how did empathy evolve?' Yet this is only implied ("…how did it evolve? Here's Sara Konrath…") – the clip of Dr Konrath does not include any interview questions.
A journalist has to edit a programme together, to offer a narrative a listener can easily follow, so it is likely an interview would be edited down to select the most useful material. Indeed, when transcribing, I suspected that there was an edit at the point I have marked * above. I could not hear any evidence of an edit, BUT to my ears the speech was not natural in moving between "…whatever the baby needs" and "And that same brain system…". Perhaps I am wrong. But, perhaps there was a pause, or a 'false start', edited out to tidy the clip; or perhaps some material deemed less pertinent or too technical for present purposes was removed. Or, possibly, the order of the material has been changed if the speaker had responded to a number of questions, and it was felt a re-ordering of segments of different responses offered a better narrative.
All of that would be totally acceptable, as long as it was done without any intention to distort what the speaker had said. Indeed, in analysing and presenting research material from interviews or written texts, one approach is known as editing. 4 I have used this myself, to select text from different points in an interview to build up a narrative that can summarise an informant's ideas succinctly (e.g., Taber, 2008 5). This needs to be done carefully, but as long as an effort is made to be true to the person's own ideas (as the researcher understands them from the data) and this methodological technique is explicitly reported to readers, it is a valid approach and can be very effective.
Perhaps, if Dr Konrath was indeed asked 'how did empathy evolve?' this was a rather unfair question. Unlike some anatomical structures, empathy does not leave direct evidence in the fossil record. This might explain a not entirely convincing response.
The gist of the clip, as I assume a listener was meant to understand it, was along the lines.
How did empathy evolve?
babies cannot look after themselves and need support
they cry to get attention when they need help
a system evolved to ensure that others around the baby would pay attention to its cries, and feel compassionate, and so help it
the system either has the side effect of, or has evolved over time, allowing us to be empathetic more generally so we support people who need help
Perhaps that narrative is correct, and perhaps there is even scientific evidence for it. But, in terms of what I actually hear Dr Konrath say, I do not find a strong evolutionary account, but rather something along the lines:
We have a biological system known as the care-giving system, that activates a hormone that reduces stress and helps us feel close and connected to others
this allows us to feel compassion for people in need
encouraging us to care for other people, largely indiscriminately
even strangers, such as a crying baby
When I reframe ('edit') the interview that way, I do not see any strong case for why this system is designed specifically to help us care for our crying babies – but nor is there any obvious evolutionary argument. 6
If one approaches this description with a prior assumption that such things have evolved through natural selection then Dr Konrath's words can certainly be readily interpreted to be consistent with an evolutionary narrative. 6 However, someone who did not accept evolution and had a metaphysical commitment to seeing the natural world as evidence for a designer would surely be able to understand the interview just as well within that frame. I suspect both Paley and Darwin would have been able to work this material into their arguments.
Works cited:
Darwin, C. (1859/2006). The Origin of Species. In E. O. Wilson (Ed.), From so Simple a Beginning: The four great books of Charles Darwin. New York: W. W. Norton.
Dawkins, R. (1988). The Blind Watchmaker. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Paley, W. (1802/2006). Natural Theology: Or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (M. D. Eddy & D. Knight Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring Conceptual Integration in Student Thinking: Evidence from a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1915-1943. (DOI: 10.1080/09500690701589404.)
1 The term 'one long argument' was used by Darwin to describe his thesis in the Origin of Species.
2 I write loosely here: science does not do anything; rather, it is scientists that act. Yet it would not be true to claim scientists do not speculate on first causes which are not open to scientific investigation. Many of them do. (Dawkins, for example, seems very certain there is no creator God.) However, that is because scientists are people and so have multiple identities. Just as nothing stops a scientist also being a mother or a daughter; nothing stops them being ice skaters, break dancers or poets. So, scientists do speculate outside of the natural realm – but then they are doing something other than science, as when they write limericks. (And perhaps something where their scientific credentials suggest no special expertise.)
3 Unfortunately, this can mislead learners into thinking science is atheistic and scientists necessarily atheists:
"The tradition in Western science (with its tendencies towards an analytical and reductionist approach) to precede as though the existence and potential role of God in nature is irrelevant to answering scientific questions, if not explicitly explained to students, may well give the impression that because science (as a socio-cultural activity) does not need to adopt the hypothesis of the divine, scientists themselves (as individuals sharing membership of various social groups with their identities as scientists) eschew such an idea."
4 This process would need to be made explicit in research, where it is normally just accepted as standard practice in journalism. These two activities can be seen as quite similar, especially when research is largely based on reports from various informants. A major difference however is that whereas researchers often have months to collect, analyse and report data, journalists are often expected to move on to the next story or episode within days, so may be working under considerable time pressures.
5 For example,
"Firstly the interview transcript was reworked into a narrative account of the interview based around Alice's verbatim responses, but following the chronology of the interview schedule in the order of the questions….The next stage of the analysis involved reorganising the case material into themes in terms of the main concepts used in Alice's explanations…This process produced a case account that was reduced (in this case to about 1,000 words), and which summarises the ways Alice used ideas in her interview."
Taber, 2008: 1926
6 One can imagine researchers asking themselves how this indiscriminate system for helping others in need arose, and someone suggesting that perhaps it was originally to make sure mothers attended to their own babies, but as a 'false negative' would be so costly (if you do not notice your baby is unfed, or has fallen in the lake, or is playing with the tiger cubs…) the system was over-sensitive and tolerated 'false positives' (leading to people attending to unrelated babes in need), and even got triggered by injured or starving adults – which it transpired increased fitness for the community, so was selected for…
It can be much easier to invent feasible-sounding evolutionary 'just-so stories' than rigorously testing them!
Scientist reveals what the earth has been trying to do
Keith S. Taber
Seismology – the study of the earth letting off steam? (Image by ELG21 from Pixabay)
"the earth has one objective, it has had one objective for four and half billion years, and that's…"
In our time
'In Our Time' is an often fascinating radio programme (and podcast) where Melvyn Bragg gets three scholars from a field to explain some topic to a general audience.
Imagine young Melvyn interrupting a physics teacher's careful exposition of why pV = 1/3nmc2 by asking how the gas molecules came to be moving in the first place.
I am not sure if the reason that I sometimes find the science episodes seem a little less erudite than those in the the other categories is:
a) Melvyn is more of an arts person, so operates at a different level in different topics;
b) I am more of a science person, so more likely to be impressed by learning new things in non-science topics; and to spot simplifications, over-generalisations, and so forth, in science topics.
c) A focus in recent years on the importance of the public understanding of science and science communication means that scientists may (often, not always) be better prepared and skilled at pitching difficult topics for a general audience.
d) Topics from subjects like history and literature are easier to talk about to a general audience than many science topics which are often highly conceptual and technical.
Anyway, today I did learn something from the episode on seismology ("Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss how the study of earthquakes helps reveal Earth's secrets [sic]"). I was told what the earth had been up to for the last four and half billion years…
Seismology: Where does this energy come from?
Quite early in the discussion Melvyn (sorry, The Lord Bragg CH – but he is so familiar from his broadcasts over the years that he seems like an old friend) interjected when Dr James Hammond (Reader in Geophysics at Birkbeck, University of London) was talking about forces involved in plate tectonics to ask "Where does this energy come from?". To this, Dr Hammond replied,
"The whole thing that drives the whole caboose?
It comes from plate tectonics. So, essentially the earth has one objective, it has had one objective for four and half billion years, and that's to cool down. We're [on] a big lump of rock floating in space, and it's got all this primordial energy, so we are going right back here, there's all this primordial energy from the the material coming together, and it's trying to cool down."
Dr James Hammond talking on 'In Our Time' 1
My immediate response, was that this was teleology – seeing purpose in nature. But actually, this might be better described as anthropomorphism. This explanation presents the earth as being the kind of agent that has an objective, and which can act in the world to work towards goals. That is, like a human:
Of course, in scientific terms, the earth has no such objective, and it is not trying to do anything as it is inanimate. Basic thermodynamics suggests that an object (e.g., the earth) that is hotter than its surroundings will cool down as it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs it. 2 (Of course, the sun is hotter than the earth – but that's a rather minority component of the earth's surroundings, even if in some ways a very significant one.) Hot objects tend to cool down, unless they have an active mechanism to maintain their temperature above their ambient backgrounds (such as 'warm-blooded' creatures). 3
So, in scientific terms, this explanation might be seen as flawed – indeed as reflecting an alternative conception of similar kind as when students explain evolutionary adaptations in terms of organisms trying to meet some need (e.g., The brain thinks: grow more fur), or explain chemical processes in terms of atoms seeking to meet a need by filling their electron shells (e.g., Chlorine atoms share electrons to fill in their shells).
Does Dr Hammond really believe this account?
Does Dr Hammond really think the earth has an objective that it actively seeks to meet? I very much doubt it. This was clearly rhetorical language adopting tropes seen as appropriate to meet the needs of the context (a general audience, a radio programme with no visuals to support explanations). In particular, he was in full flow when he was suddenly interrupted by Melvin, a bit like the annoying child who interrupts the teacher's carefully prepared presentation by asking 'but why's that?' about something it had been assumed all present would take for granted.
Imagine the biology teacher trying to discuss cellular metabolism when young Melvin asks 'but where did the sugar come from?'; or the chemistry teacher discussing the mechanism of a substitution reaction when young Melvin asks why we are assuming tetrahedral geometry around the carbon centre of interest; or young Melvyn interrupting a physics teacher's careful exposition of why pV = 1/3nmc2 by asking how the gas molecules came to be moving in the first place.
Of course, part of Melvin's job in chairing the programme IS to act as the child who does not understand something being taken for granted and not explained, so vicariously supporting the listener without specialist background in that week's topic.
Effective communication versus accurate communication?
Science teachers and communicators have to sometimes use ploys to 'make the unfamiliar familiar'. One common ploy is to employ an anthropomorphic narrative as people readily relate to the human experience of having goals and acting to meet needs and desires. Locating difficult ideas within such a 'story' framework is known to often make such ideas more accessible. Does this gain balance the potential to mislead people into thinking they have been given a scientific account? In general, such ploys are perhaps best used only as introductions to a difficult topic, introductions which are then quickly followed up by more technical accounts that better match the scientific narrative (Taber & Watts, 2000).
Clearly, that is more feasible when the teacher or communicator has the opportunity for a more extensive engagement with an audience, so that understanding can be built up and developed over time. I imagine Dr Hammond was briefed that he had just a few minutes to get across his specific points in this phase of the programme, only to then find he was interrupted and asked to address additional background material.
As a scientist, the notion of the earth spending billions of years trying to cool down grates as it reflects pre-scientific thinking about nature and acts as a pseudo-explanation (something which has the form of an explanation, but little substance).
As cooling is a very familiar everyday phenomena, I wondered if a basic response that would avoid anthropomorphism might have served, e.g.,
When the earth formed, it was very much hotter than today, and, as it was hotter than its surroundings, it has been slowly cooling ever since by radiating energy into space. Material inside the earth may be hot enough to be liquid, or – where solid – be plastic enough to be deformed. The surface is now much cooler than it was, but inside the earth it is still very hot, and radioactive processes continue to heat materials inside the earth. We can understand seismic events as driven by the ways heat is being transferred from deep inside the earth.
However, just because I am a scientist, I am also less well-placed to know how effective this might have been for listeners without a strong science background – who may well have warmed [sic] to the earth striving to cool.
Dr Hammond had to react instantly (like a school teacher often has to) and make a quick call based on his best understanding of the likely audience. That is one of the difference between teaching (or being interviewed by Melvin) and simply giving a prepared lecture.
1 Speech often naturally has repetitions, and markers of emphasis, and hesitations that seem perfectly natural when heard, but which do not match written language conventions. I have slightly tidied what I transcribed from:
"The whole thing that drives the whole caboose? It comes from plate tectonics, right. So, essentially the earth, right, has one objective, it has had one objective for four and half billion years, and that's to cool down. Right, we're a big lump of rock floating in space, and it's got all this primordial energy, so we are going right back here, there's all this primordial energy from, from the the material coming together,4 and it's trying to cool down."
2 In simple terms, the hotter an object is, the greater the rate at which it radiates.
The hotter the environment is, the more intense the radiation incident on the object and the more energy it will absorb.
Ultimately, in an undisturbed, closed system everything will reach thermal equilibrium (the same temperature). Our object still radiates energy, but at the same rate as it absorbs it from the environment so there is no net heat flow.
3 Historically, the earth's cooling was an issue of some scientific controversy, after Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) calculated that if the earth was cooling at the rate his models suggested for a body of its mass, then this was cooling much too rapid for the kind of timescales that were thought to be needed for life to have evolved on earth.
4 This is referring to the idea that the earth was formed by the coming together of material (e.g., space debris from a supernova) by its mutual gravitational attraction. Before this happens the material can be considered to be in a state of high gravitational potential energy. As the material is accelerated together it acquires kinetic energy (as the potential energy reduces), and then when the material collides inelastically it forms a large mass of material with high internal energy (relating to the kinetic and potential energy of the molecules and ions at the submicroscopic level) reflected in a high temperature.
Specimens of two different types of natural 'engines'. Portrait of Sir Kenelm Digby, 1603-65 (Anthony van Dyck: From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository)
In this post I discuss a historical scientific analogy used to discuss the distinction between animals and plants. The analogy was used in a book which is said to be the first major work of philosophy published in the English language, written by one of the founders of The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge ('The Royal Society'), Sir Kenelm Digby.
Why take interest in an out-of-date analogy?
It is quite easy to criticise some of the ideas of early modern scientists in the light of current scientific knowledge. Digby had some ideas which seem quite bizarre to today's reader, but perhaps some of today's canonical scientific ideas, and especially more speculative theories being actively proposed, may seem equally ill-informed in a few centuries time!
There is a value in considering historical scientific ideas, in part because they help us understand a little about the path that scientists took towards current scientific thinking. This might be valuable in avoiding the 'rhetoric of conclusions', where well-accepted ideas become so familiar that we come to take them for granted, and fail to appreciate the ways in which such ideas often came to be accepted in the face of competing notions and mixed experimental evidence.
For the science educator there are added benefits. It reminds us that highly intelligent and well motivated scholars, without the value of the body of scientific discourse and evidence available today, might sensibly come up with ideas that seem today ill-conceived, sometimes convoluted, and perhaps even foolish. That is useful to bear in mind when our students fail to immediately understand the science they are taught and present with alternative conceptions that may seem illogical or fantastic to the teacher. Insight into the thought of others can help us consider how to shift their thinking and so can make us better teachers.
Analogies are used in teaching and in science communication to help 'make the unfamiliar familiar', to show someone that something they do not (yet) know about is actually, in some sense at least, a bit like something they are already familiar with. In an analogy, there is a mapping between some aspect(s) of the structure of the target ideas and the structure of the familiar phenomenon or idea being offered as an analogue. Such teaching analogies can be useful to the extent that someone is indeed highly familiar with the 'analogue' (and more so than with the target knowledge being communicated); that there is a helpful mapping across between the analogue and the target; and that comparison is clearly explained (making clear which features of the analogue are relevant, and how).
Digby presents his analogy for considering the difference between plants and animals in his 'Discourse on Bodies', the first part of his comprehensive text known as his 'Two Discourses' completed in 1644, and in which he sets out something of a system of the world.1 Although, to a modern scientific mind, many of Digby's ideas seem odd, and his complex schemes sometimes feel rather forced, he shared the modern scientific commitment that natural phenomena should be explained in terms of natural causes and mechanisms. (That is certainly not to suggest he was an atheist, as he was a committed Roman Catholic, but he assumed that nature had been set up to work without 'occult' influences.)
Before introducing an analogy between types of living things and types of engines, Digby had already prepared his readers by using the term 'engine' metaphorically to refer to living things. He did this after making a distinction between matter dug out of the ground as a single material, and other specimens which although highly compacted into single bodies of material clearly comprised of "differing parts" that did not work together to carry out any function, and seemed to have come together by "chance and by accident"; and where, unlike in living things (where removed parts tended to stop functioning), the separate parts could be "severed from [one] another" without destroying any underlying harmonic whole. He contrasted these accidental complexes with,
"other bodies in which this manifest and notable difference of parts, carries with it such subordination of one of them unto another, as we cannot doubt but that nature made such engines (if so I may call them) by design; and intended that this variety should be in one thing; whole unity and being what it is, should depend of the harmony of the several differing parts, and should be destroyed by their separation".
Digby emphasising the non-accidental structure of living things (language slightly tidied for a modern reader).
Digby was writing long before Charles Darwin's work, and accepted the then widely shared idea that there was design in nature. Today this would be seen as teleological, and not appropriate in a scientific account.A teleological account can be circular (tautological) if the end result of some process is explained as due to that process having a purpose. [Consider the usefulness as an 'explanation' that 'oganisms tend to become more complex over time as nature strives for complexity'. 2]
Scientists today are expected to offer accounts which do not presuppose endpoints. That does not mean that a scientists cannot believe there is purpose in the world, or even that the universe was created by a purposeful God – simply that scientific accounts cannot 'cheat' by using arguments that something happens because God wished it, or nature was working towards it. That is, it should not make any difference whether a scientist believes God is the ultimate cause of some phenomena (through creating the world, and setting up the laws of nature) as science is concerned with the natural 'mechanisms' and causes of events.
In the part of his treatise on bodies that concerns living things, Digby gives an account of two 'engines' he had seen many years before when he was travelling in Spain. This was prior to the invention of the modern steam engine, and these engines were driven by water (as in water mills). 3
Digby introduces two machines which he considers illustrate "the natures of these two kinds of bodies [i.e., plants and animals]"
He gives a detailed account of one of the engines, explaining that the mechanism has one basic function – to supply water to an elevated place above a river.
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
His other engine example (apparently recalled in less detail – he acknowledges having a "confused and cloudy remembrance" ) was installed in a mint in a mine where it had a number of different functions, including:
producing metal of the correct thickness for coinage
stamping the metal with the coinage markings
cutting the coins from the metal
transferring the completed coins into the supply room.
These days we might see it as a kind of conveyor belt moving materials through several specialist processes.
Different classes of engine
Digby seems to think this is a superior sort of engine to the single function example.
For Digby, the first type of engine is like a plant,
"Thus then; all sorts of plants, both great and small, may be compared to our first engine of the waterwork at Toledo, for in them all the motion we can discern, is of one part transmitting unto the next to it, the juice which it received from that immediately before it…"
Digby comparing a plant to a single function machine
The comments here about juice may seem a bit obscure, as Digby has an extended explanation (over several pages) of how the growth and structure of a plant are based on a single kind of vascular tissue and a one-way transport of liquid. 4 Liquid rises up through the plant just as it was raised up by the mechanism at Toldeo
The multi-function 'engine' (perhaps ironically better considered in today's terms as an industrial plant!) is however more like an animal,
"But sensible living creatures, we may fitly compare to the second machine of the mint at Segovia. For in them, though every part and member be as it were a complete thing of itself, yet every one requires to be directed and put on in its motion by another; and they must all of them (though of very different natures and kinds of motion) conspire together to effect any thing that may be for the use and service of the whole. And thus we find in them perfectly the nature of a mover and a moveable; each of them moving differently from one another, and framing to themselves their own motions, in such sort as is more agreeable to their nature, when that part which sets them on work hath stirred them up.
And now because these parts (the movers and the moved) are parts of one whole; we call the entire thing automaton or…a living creature".
Digby comparing animals to more complex machines (language slightly tidied for a modern reader)
So plants were to animals as a single purpose mechanism was to a complex production line.
Animals as super-plants
Digby thought animals and plants shared in key characteristics of generation (we would say reproduction), nutrition, and augmentation (i.e., growth), as well as suffering sickness, decay and death. But Digby did not just think animals were different to plants, but a superior kind.
He explains this both in terms of the animal having functions that be did not beleive applied to plants,
And thus you see this plant [sic] has the virtue both of sense or feeling; that is, of being moved and affected by external objects lightly striking upon it; as also of moving itself, to or from such an object; according as nature shall have ordained.
but he also related to this as animals being more complex. Whereas the plant was based on a vascular system involving only one fluid, this super-plant-like-entity, had three. In summary,
this plant [sic, the animal] is a sensitive creature, composed of three sources, the heart, the brain, and the liver: whose are the arteries, the nerves, and the veins; which are filled with vital spirits, with animal spirits, and with blood: and by these the animal is heated, nourished, and made partaker of sense and motion.
A historical analogy to explain the superiority of animals to plants
[The account here does not seem entirely consistent with other parts of the book, especially if the reader is supposed to associate a different fluid with each of the three systems. Later in the treatise, Digby refers to Harvey's work about circulation of the blood (including to the liver), leaving the heart through arteries, and to veins returning blood to the heart. His discussion of sensory nerves suggest they contain 'vital spirits'.]
Some comments on Digby's analogy
Although some of this detail seems bizarre by today's standards, Digby was discussing ideas about the body that were fairly widely accepted. As suggested above, we should not criticise those living in previous times for not sharing current understandings (just as we have to hope that future generations are kind to our reasonable mistakes). There are, however, two features of this use of analogy I thought worth commenting on from a modern point of view.
The logic of making the unfamiliar familiar
If such analogies are to be used in teaching and science communication, then they are a tactic we can use to 'make the unfamiliar familiar', that is to help others understand what are sometimes difficult (e.g., abstract, counter-intuitive) ideas by pointing out they are somewhat like something the person is already familiar with and feels comfortable that they understand.
In a teaching context, or when a scientist is being interviewed by a journalist, it is usually important that the analogue is chosen so it is already familiar to the audience. Otherwise either the analogy does not help explain anything, or time has to be spent first explaining the analogy, before it can be employed.
In that sense, then, we might question Digby's example as not being ideal. He has to exemplify the two types of machines he is setting up as the analogue before he can make an analogy with it. Yet this is not a major problem here for two reasons.
Firstly, a book affords a generosity to an author that may not be available to a teacher or a scientist talking to a journalist or public audience. Reading a book (unlike a magazine, say) is a commitment to engagement in depth and over time, and a reader who is still with Digby by his Chapter 23 has probably decided that continued engagement is worth the effort.
Secondly, although most of his readers will not be familiar with the specific 'engines' he discusses from his Spanish travels, they will likely be familiar enough with water mills and other machines and devices to readily appreciate the distinction he makes through those examples. The abstract distinction between two classes of 'engine' is therefore clear enough, and can then be used as an analogy for the difference between plants and animals.
A biased account
However, today we would not consider this analogy to be applicable, even in general terms, leaving aside the now discredited details of plant and animal anatomy and physiology. An assumption behind the comparison is that animals are superior to plants.
In part, this is explained in terms of the plants apparent lack of sensitivity (later 'irritability' would be added as a characteristic of living things, shared by plants) and their their lack of ability in getting around, and so not being able to cross the room to pick up some object. In part, this may be seen as an anthropocentric notion: as humans who move around and can handle objects, it clearly seems to us with our embodied experience of being in the world that a form of life that does not do this (n.b., does not NEED to do this) is inferior. This is a bit like the argument that bacteria are primitive forms of life as they have evolved so little (a simplification, of course) over billions of years: which can alternatively be understood as showing how remarkably adapted they already were, to be able to successfully occupy so many niches on earth without changing their basic form.
There is also a level of ignorance about plants. Digby saw the plant as having a mechanism that moved moisture from the soil through the plant, but had no awareness of the phloem (only named in the nineteenth century) that means that transport in a plant is not all in one direction. He also did not seem to appreciate the complexity of seasonal changes in plants which are much more complex than a mechanism carrying out a linear function (like lifting water to a privileged person who lives above a river). He saw much of the variation in plant structures as passive responses to external agents. His idea of human physiology are also flawed by today's standards, of course.
Moreover, in Digby's scheme (from simple minerals dug from the ground, to accidentally compacted complex materials, to plants and then animals) there is a clear sense of that long-standing notion of hierarchy within nature.
The great chain of being
That is, the great chain of being, which is a system for setting out the world as a kind of ladder of superior and inferior forms. Ontology is sometimes described as the study of being , and typologies of different classes of entities are sometimes referred to as ontologies. The great chain of being can be understood as a kind of ontology distinguishing the different types of things that exist – and ranking them.
In this scheme (or rather schemes, as various versions with different levels of detail and specificity had been produced – for example discriminating the different classes of angels) minerals come below plants, which come below animals. To some extent Digby's analogy may reflect his own observations of animals and plants leading him to think animals were collectively and necessarily more complex than plants. However, ideas about the great chain of being were part of common metaphysical assumptions about the world. That is, most people took it for granted that there was such hierarchy in nature, and therefore they were likely to interpret what they observed in those terms.
Digby made the comparison between increasing complexity in moving from plant to animal as being a similar kind of step-up as when moving from inorganic material to plants,
But a sensitive creature, being compared to a plant, [is] as a plant is to a mixed [inorganic] body; you cannot but conceive that he must be compounded as it were of many plants, in like sort as a plant is of many mixed bodies.
Digby, then, was surely building his scheme upon his prior metaphysical commitments. Or, as we might say these days, his observations of the world were 'theory-laden'. So, Digby was not only offering an analogy to help discriminate between animals and plants, but was discriminating against plants in assuming they were inherently inferior to animals. I think that is a bias that is still common today.
Work cited:
Digby, K. (1644/1665). Two Treatises: In the one of which, the nature of bodies; In the other, the nature of mans soule, is looked into: in ways of the discovery of the immortality of reasonable soules. (P. S. MacDonald Ed.). London: John Williams.
Digby, K. (1644/2013). Two Treatises: Of Bodies and of Man's Soul (P. S. MacDonald Ed.): The Gresham Press.
1 This is a fascinating book with many interesting examples of analogies, similes, metaphor, personification and the like, and an interesting early attempt to unify forces (here, gravity and magnetism). (I expect to write more about this over time.) The version I am reading is a 2013 edition (Digby, 1644/2013) which has been edited to offer consistent spellings (as that was not something many authors or publishers concerned themselves with at the time). The illustrations, however, are from a facsimile of an original publication (Digby, 1644/1645: which is now out of copyright so can be freely reproduced).
2 Such explanations may be considered as a class of 'pseudo-explanations': that give the semblance of explanation without actually explaining very much (Taber & Watts, 2000).
3 The aeolipile (e.g., Hero's engine) was a kind of steam engine – but was little more than a novelty where water boiled in a vessel with suitably directed outlets and free to rotate, causing it to spin. However, the only 'useful' work done was in turning the engine itself.
4 This relates to his broader theory of matter which still invokes the medieval notion of the four elements, but is also an atomic theory involving tiny particles that can pass into apparently solid materials due to pores and channels much too small to be visible.
It seems atoms are not quite as chemists imagine them not to be
Keith S. Taber
A research paper presenting a new model of atomic and molecular structure was recently brought to my attention. 1
The paper header
'New Atomic Model with Identical Electrons Position in the Orbital's and Modification of Chemical Bonds and MOT [molecular orbital theory]' 2 is published in a recently-launched journal with the impressive title of Annals of Atoms and Molecules. This is an open-access journal available free on the web – so readily accessible to chemistry experts, as well as students studying the subject and lay-people looking to learn from a scholarly source. [Spoiler alert – it may not be an ideal source for scholarly information!]
In the paper, Dr Morshed proposes a new model of the atom that he suggests overcomes many problems with the model currently used in chemistry.
A new model of atomic structure envisages East and West poles as well as North and South poles) (Morshed, 2020a, p.8)
Of course, as I have often pointed out on this blog, one of the downsides of the explosion in on-line publishing and the move to open access models of publication, is that anyone can set up as an academic journal publisher and it can be hard for the non-expert to know what reflects genuine academic quality when what gets published in many new journals often seems to depend primarily upon an author being willing to pay the publisher a hefty fee (Taber, 2013).
That is not to suggest open-access publishing has to compromise quality: the well-established, recognised-as-prestigious journals can afford to charge many hundreds of pounds for open-access publication and still be selective. But, new journals, often unable to persuade experienced experts to act as reviewers, will not attract many quality papers, and so cannot be very selective if they are to cover costs (or indeed make the hoped-for profits for their publishers).
A peer reviewed journal
The journal with the impressive title of Annals of Atom and Molecules has a website which explains that
"Annals of Atoms and Molecules is an open access, peer reviewed journal that publishes novel research insights covering but not limited to constituents of atoms, isotopes of an element, models of atoms and molecules, excitations and de-excitations, ionizations, radiation laws, temperatures and characteristic wavelengths of atoms and molecules. All the published manuscripts are subjected to standardized peer review processing".
So, in principle at least, the journal has experts in the field critique submissions, and advise the editors on (i) whether a manuscript has potential to be of sufficient interest and quality to be worth publishing, and (ii) if so, what changes might be needed before publications is wise.
Standardisedpeer review gives the impression of some kind of moderation (perhaps renormalisation given the focus of the journal? 3) of review reports, which would involve a lot of extra work and another layer of administration in the review process…but I somehow suspect this claim really just meant a 'standard' process. This does not seem to be a journal where great care is taken over the language used.
Effective peer review relies on suitable experts taking on the reviewing, and editors prepared to act on their recommendations. The website lists five members of the editorial board, most of whom seem to be associated with science departments in academic institutions:
Prof. Farid Menaa (Fluorotronics Inc) 4
Prof. Sabrin Ragab Mohamed Ibrahim (Department of Pharmacognosy and Pharmaceutical chemistry, Taibah University)
Prof. Mina Yoon (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee)
Dr. Christian G Parigger (Department of Physics, University of Tennessee Space Institute)
Dr. Essam Hammam El-Behaedi (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina Wilmington)
The members of a journal Editorial Board will not necessarily undertake the reviewing themselves, but are the people entrusted by the publisher with scholarly oversight of the quality of the journal. For this journal it is claimed that "Initially the editorial board member handles the manuscript and may assign or the editorial staff may assign the reviewers for the received manuscript". This sounds promising, as at least (it is claimed) all submissions are initially seen by a Board member, whether or not they actually select the expert reviewers. (The 'or' means that the claim is, of course, logically true even if in actuality all of the reviewers are assigned by the unidentified office staff.)
At the time of writing only three papers have been published in the Annals. One reviews a spectroscopic method, one is a short essay on quantum ideas in chemistry – and then there is Dr Morshed's new atomic theory.
A new theory of atomic structure
The abstract of Dr Morshed's paper immediately suggests that this is a manuscript which was either not carefully prepared or has been mistreated in production. The first sentence is:
The concept of atom has undergone numerous changes in the history of chemistry, most notably the realization that atoms are divisible and have internal structure Scientists have known about atoms long before they could produce images of them with powerful magnifying tools because atoms could not be seen, the early ideas about atoms were mostly founded in philosophical and religion-based reasoning.
Morshed, 2020a, p.6
Presumably, this was intended to be more than one sentence. If the author made errors in the text, they should have been queried by the copy editor. If the production department introduced errors, then they should have been corrected by the author when sent the proofs for checking. Of course, a few errors can sometimes still slip through, but this paper has many of them. Precise language is important in a research paper, and sloppy errors do not give the reader confidence in the work being reported.
The novelty of the work is also set out in the abstract:
In my new atomic model, I have presented the definite position of electron/electron pairs in the different orbital (energy shells) with the identical distance among all nearby electron pairs and the degree position of electrons/electron pairs with the Center Point of Atoms (nucleus) in atomic structure, also in the molecular orbital.
Morshed, 2020a, p.6
This suggests more serious issues with the submission than simple typographical errors.
Orbital /energy shells
The term "orbital (energy shells)" is an obvious red flag to any chemist asked to evaluate this paper. There are serious philosophical arguments about precisely what a model is and the extent to which a model of the atom might be considered to be realistic. Arguably, models that are not mathematical and which rely on visualising the atom are inherently not realistic as atoms are not the kinds of things one could see. So, terms such as shell or orbital are either being used to refer to some feature in a mathematical description or are to some extent metaphorical. BUT, when the term shell is used, it conventionally means something different from an orbital.
That is, in the chemical community, the electron shell (sic, not energy shell) and the orbital refer to different classes of entity (even if in the case of the K shell there is only one associated orbital). Energy levels are related, but again somewhat distinct – an energy level is ontologically quite different to an orbital or a shell in a similar way to how sea level is very different in kind to a harbour or a lagoon; or how 'mains voltage' is quite different from the house's distribution box or mains ring; or how an IQ measurement is a different kind of thing to the brain of the person being assessed.
Definite positions of electrons
An orbital is often understood as a description of the distribution of the electron density – we might picture (bearing in mind my point that the most authentic models are mathematical) the electron smeared out as in a kind of time-lapse representation of where the electron moves around the volume of space designated as an orbital. Although, as an entity small enough for quantum effects to be significant (a 'quanticle'? – with some wave-like characteristics, rather than a particle that is just like a bearing ball only much smaller), it may be better not to think of the electron actually being at any specific point in space, but rather having different probabilities of being located at specific points if we could detect precisely where it was at any moment.
That is, if one wants to consider the electron as being at specific points in space then this can only be done probabilistically. The notion of "the definite position of electron/electron pairs in the different orbital" is simply nonsensical when the orbital is understood in terms of a wave function. Any expert asked to review this manuscript would surely have been troubled by this description.
It is often said that electrons are sometimes particles and sometimes waves but that is a very anthropocentric view deriving from how at the scale humans experience the world, these seem very distinct types of things. Perhaps it is better to think that electrons are neither particles nor waves as we experience them, but something else (quanticles) with more subtle behavioural repertoires. We think that there is a fundamental inherent fuzziness to matter at the scale where we describe atoms and molecules.
So, Dr Morshed wants to define 'definite positions' for electrons in his model, but electrons in atoms do not have a fixed position. (Later there is reference to circulation – so perhaps these are considered as definite relative positions?) In any case, due to the inherent fuzziness in matter, if an electron's position was known absolutely then there would would (by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) be an infinite uncertainty in its momentum, so although we might know 'exactly' where it was 'now' (or rather 'just now' when the measurement occurred as it would take time for the signal to be processed through first our laboratory, and then our nervous, apparatus!) this would come with having little idea where it was a moment later. Over any duration of time, the electron in an atom does not have a definite position – so there is little value in any model that seeks to represent such a fixed position.
The problem addressed
Dr Morshed begins by giving some general historical introduction to ideas about the atom, before going on to set out what is argued to be the limitation of current theory:
Electrons are arranged in different orbital[s] by different numbers in pairs/unpaired around the nuclei. Electrons pairs are associated by opposite spin together to restrict opposite movement for stability in orbital rather angular movements. The structural description is obeyed for the last more than hundred years but the exact positions of electrons/pairs in the energy shells of atomic orbital are not described with the exact locations among different orbital/shells.
Morshed, 2020a, p.6
Some of this is incoherent. It may well be that English is not Dr Morshed's native language, in which case it is understandable that producing clear English prose may be challenging. What is less forgivable is that whichever of Profs. Ibrahim, Yoon, or Drs Menaa, Parigger, or El-Behaedi initially handled the manuscript did not point out that it needed to be corrected and in clear English before it could be considered for publication, which could have helped the author avoid the ignominy of having his work published with so many errors.
That assumes, of course, that whichever of Ibrahim, Yoon, Menaa, Parigger, or El-Behaedi initially handled the manuscript were so ignorant of chemistry to be excused for not spotting that a paper addressing the issue of how current atomic models fail to assign "exact positions of electrons/pairs in the energy shells of atomic orbital are not described with the exact locations among different orbital/shells" both confused distinct basic atomic concepts and seemed to be criticising a model of atomic structure that students move beyond before completing upper secondary chemistry. In other words, this paper should have been rejected on editorial screening, and never should have been sent to review, as its basic premise was inconsistent with modern chemical theory.
If, as claimed, all papers are seen by the one of the editorial board, then the person assigned as handling editor for this one does not seem to have taken the job seriously. (And as only three papers have been published since the journal started, the workload shared among five board members does not seem especially onerous.)
Just in case the handling editorial board member was not reading the text closely enough, Dr Morshed offered some images of the atomic model which is being critiqued as inadequate in the paper:
A model of the atom criticised in the paper in Annals of Atoms and Molecules (Morshed, 2020a, p.7)
Again, the handling editor should have noticed that these images in the figure reflect the basic model of the atom taught in introductory school classes as commonly represented in simple two-dimensional images. These are not the models used to progress knowledge in academic chemistry today.
These images are not being reproduced in the research paper as part of some discussion of atomic representations in school textbooks. Rather this is the model that the author is suggesting falls short as part of current chemical theory – but it is actually an introductory pedagogical model that is not the basis of any contemporary chemical research, and indeed has not been so for the best part of a century. Even though the expression "the electrons/electron pairs position is not identical by their position, alignments or distribution" does not have any clear meaning in normal English, what is clear is that these very simple models are only used today for introductory pedagogic purposes.
Symmetrical atoms?
The criticism of the model continues:
The existing electrons pair coupling model is not also shown clearly in figure by which a clear structure of opposite spine pair can be drowned. Also there are no proper distribution of electron/s around the center (nuclei) to maintain equal number of electrons/electronic charge (charge proportionality) around the total mass area of atomic circle (360°) in the existing atomic model (Figure 1). There are no clear ideas about the speed proportion and time of circulation of electrons/electron pairs in the atomic orbital/shells so there is no answer about the possibility of uneven number of electrons/electron pairs at any position /side of atomic body can arise that must make any atom unstable.
Morshed, 2020a, p.7
Again, this makes little sense (to me at least – perhaps the Editorial Board members are better at hermeneutics than I am). Now we are told that electrons are 'circulating' in the orbitals/shell which seems inconsistent with them having the "definite positions" that Dr Morshed's model supposedly offers. Although I can have a guess at some of the intended meaning, I really would love to know what is meant by "a clear structure of opposite spine pair can be drowned".
Protecting an atom from drowning? (Images by Image by ZedH and Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay)
A flat model of the atom
I initially thought that Dr Morshed is concerned that the model shown in figure 1 cannot effectively show how in the three dimensional atomic structure the electrons must be arranged to give a totally symmetric patterns: and (in his argument) that this would be needed else it would leave the atoms unstable. Of course, two dimensional images do not easily show three dimensional structure. So when Dr Morshed referred to the "atomic circle (360°) in the existing atomic model" I assumed he was actually referring to the sphere.
On reflection, I am not so sure. I was unimpressed by the introduction of cardinal points for the atom (see Dr Morshed's figure 2 above, and figure 4 below). I could understand the idea of a nominal North and South pole in relation to the angular momentum of the nucleus and electrons 'spinning up or down' – but surely the East and West poles are completely arbitrary for an atom as any point on the 'equator' could be used as the basis for assigning these poles. However, if Dr Morshed is actually thinking in terms of a circular (i.e., flat) model of the atom, and not circular representations of a spherical model of atomic structure then atoms would indeed have an Occident and an Orient! The East pole WOULD be to the right when the atom has the North pole at the top as is conventional in most maps today. 5
But atoms are not all symmetrical?
But surely most atoms are not fully symmetrical, and indeed this is linked to why most elements do not commonly exist as discrete atoms. The elements of those that do, the noble gas elements, are renown for not readily reacting because they (atypically for atoms) have a symmetrical electronic 'shield' for the nuclear charge. However, even some of these elements can be made cold enough to solidify – as the van der Waals forces allow transient fluctuating dipoles. So the argument seems to be based on a serious alternative conception of the usual models of atomic structure.
It is the lack of full symmetry in an atom of say, fluorine, or chlorine, which means that although it is a neutral species it has an electron affinity (that is, energy is released when the anion is formed) as an electron can be attracted to the core charge where it is not fully shielded.
The reference to "time of circulation of electrons/electron pairs in the atomic orbital/shells" seems to refer to a mechanical model of orbital motion, which again, has no part in current chemical theory.
Preventing negative electron pairs repelling each other
Dr Morshed suggests that the existing model of atomic structure cannot explain
Why the similar charged electrons don't feel repulsion among themselves within the same nearby atomic orbital of same atom or even in the molecular orbital when two or more atomic orbital come closer to form molecular orbital within tinier space though there is more possibility of repulsion between similar charged electrons according to existing atomic model.
Morshed, 2020a, p.7
Electrons do not feel repulsion for the same reason they do not feel shame or hunger or boredom – or disdain for poor quality journals. Electrons are not the kind of objects that can feel anything. However, this anthropomorphic expression is clearly being used metaphorically.
I think Dr Morshed is suggesting that the conventional models of atomic structure do not explain why electrons/electron pairs do not repel each other. Of course, they do repel each other – so there is no need to look for an explanation. This then seems to be an alternative conception of current models of the atom. (The electrons do not get ejected from the atom as they are also attracted to the nucleus – but, if they did not repel each other, there would be no equilibrium of forces, and the structure of the atom would not be stable.)
A new model of atomic structure supposedly reflects the 'proper' angles between electrons in atoms (Morshed, 2020, p.9)
Dr Morshed suggests that his model (see his Figure 4) 'proves the impossibility of repulsion between any electron pairs' – even those with similar charges. All electron pairs have negative (so similar) charges – it is part of the accepted definition of an electron that is is a negatively charged entity. I do not think Dr Morshed is actually suggesting otherwise, even if he thinks the electrons in different atoms have different magnitudes of negative charge (Morshad, 2020b).
Dr Morshed introduces a new concept that he calls 'center of electron pairs neutralization point'.
This is the pin-point situated in a middle position between two electrons of opposite spin pairs. The point is exactly between of opposite spine electron pairs so how the opposite electronic spin is neutralized to remaining a stable electron pair consisting of two opposite spin electrons. This CENP points are assumed to be situated between the cross section of opposite spine electronic pair's magnetic momentum field diameter (Figure 3).
Morshed, 2020a, p.8
The yellow dot represents a point able to neutralise the opposite spin of a pair of electrons(!), and is located at the point found by drawing a cross from the ends of the ⥯ symbols used to show the electron spin! This seems to be envisaged a real point that has real effects, despite being located in terms of the geometry of a totally arbitrary symbol.
So, the electron pair is shown as a closely bound pair of electrons with the midspot of the complex highlighted (yellow in the figure) as the 'center of electron pairs neutralization point'. Although the angular momentum of the electrons with opposite spin leads to a magnetic interaction between them, they are still giving rise to an electric field which permeates through the space around them. Dr Morshed seems to be suggesting that in his model there is no repulsion between the electron pairs. He argues that:
According to magnetic attraction/repulsion characteristics any similar charges repulse or opposite charges attract when the charges energy line is in straight points. If similar charged or opposite charged end are even close but their center of energy points is not in straight line, there will be no attraction or repulsion between the charges (positive/negative). Similarly, when electrons are arranged in energy shells around the nucleus the electrons remain in pairs within opposite spin electrons where the poses a point which represent as the center of repulsion/attraction points (CENP) and two CENP never come to a straight within the atomic orbital so the similar charged electrons pairs don't feel repulsion within the energy shells.
Morshed, 2020a, pp.8-9
A literal reading of this makes little sense as any two charges will always have their centres in a straight line (from the definition of a straight line!) regardless of whether similar or opposite charges or whether close or far apart.
My best interpretation of this (and I am happy to hear a better one) is that because the atom is flat, and because the electron pairs have spin up and spin down electrons, with are represented by a kind of ⥮ symbol, the electrons in some way shield the 'CENP' so that the electron pair can only interact with another charge that has a direct line of sight to the CENP.
Morshed seems to be suggesting that although electron pairs are aligned to allow attractions with the nucleus (e.g., blue arrows) any repulsion between electron pairs is blocked because an electron in the pair shields the central point of the pair (e.g., red arrow and lines)
There are some obvious problems here from a canonical perspective, even leaving aside the flat model of the atom. One issue is that although electrons are sometimes represented as ↿ or ⇂ to indicate spin, electrons are not actually physically shaped like ↿. Secondly, pairing allows electrons to occupy the same orbital (that is, have the same set of principal, azimuthal and magnetic quantum numbers) – but this does not mean they are meant to be fixed into a closely bound entity. Also, this model works by taking the idea of spin direction literally, when – if we do that – electrons can have only have spin of ±1/2. In a literal representation such as used by Dr Morshed he would need to have ALL his electrons orientated vertically (or at least all at the same angle from the vertical). So, the model does not work in its own terms as it would prevent most of the electron pairs being attracted to the nucleus.
Morshed's figure 4 'corrected' given that electrons can only exist in two spin states. In the (corrected version of the representation of the) Morshed model most electron pairs would not be attracted to the nucleus.
A new (mis)conception of ionic bonding
Dr Morshed argues that
In case of ionic compound formation problem with the existing atomic model is where the transferred electron will take position in the new location on transferred atom? If the electrons position is not proportionally distributed along total 360 circulating area of atom, then the position of new transferred electron will cause the polarity in every ion (both cation and anion forms by every transformation of electrons) so the desired ionization is not possible thus every atom (ion) would become dipolar. On the point of view any ionization would not possible i.e., no ionic bonded compound would have formed.
Morshed, 2020, p.7
Again, although the argument may have been very clear to the author, this seems incoherent to a reader. I think Dr Morshed may be arguing that unless atoms have totally symmetrical electrons distributions ("proportionally distributed along total 360 circulating area of atom") then when the ion is formed it will have a polarity. Yet, this seems entirely back to front.
If the atom to be ionised was totally symmetric (as Dr Morshed thinks it should be), then forming an ion from the atom would require disrupting the symmetry. Whereas, by contrast, in the current canonical model, we assume most atoms are not symmetrical, and the formation of simple ions leads to a symmetric distribution of electrons (but unlike in the noble gas atoms, a symmetrical electron distribution which does not balance the nuclear charge).
Dr Morshad illustrates his idea:
Ionic bond formation represented by an non-viable interaction between atoms (Morshed, 2020, p.10)
Now these images show interactions between discrete atoms (a chemically quite unlikely scenario, as discrete atoms of sodium and chlorine are not readily found) that are energetically non-viable. As has often been pointed out, the energy released when the chloride ion is formed is much less than the energy required to ionise the sodium atom, so although this scheme is very common on the web and in poor quality textbooks, it is a kind of chemical fairy tale that does not relate to any likely chemical context. (See, for example, Salt is like two atoms joined together.)
The only obvious difference between these two versions of the fairly tale (if we ignore that in the new version both protons and neutrons appear to be indicated by + signs which is unhelpful) seems to be that the transferred electron changes its spin for some reason that does not seem to be explained in the accompanying text. The explanation that is given is
My new atomic model with identical electrons pair angle position is able to give logical solution to the problems of ion/ionic bond formation. As follows: The metallic atom which donate electrons during ion formation from outermost orbital, the electrons are arranged maintaining definite degree angle around 360° atomic mass body shown in (Figure 4). After the transformation the transferred electron take position at the vacant place of the transferred atoms outermost orbital, then instant the near most electrons/pairs rearrange their position in the orbital changing their angle position with the CPA [central point of the atom, i.e., the nucleus] due to electromagnetic repulsion feeling among the similar charged electrons/pairs. Thus the ionic atom gets equal electron charge density around whole of their 360° atomic mass body resulting the cation and anion due to the positive and negative charge difference in atomic orbital with their respective nucleus. Thus every ion becomes non polar ion to form ionic bond within two opposite charged ion (Figure 5).
Morshed, 2020, p.9
So, I think, supposedly part (b) of Dr Morshed's figure 5 is meant to show, better than part (a), how the electron distribution is modified when the ion is formed. It would of course be quite possible to show this in the kind of representations used in (a), but in any case it does not look any more obvious in (b) to my eye!
So, figure 5 does not seem to show very well Dr Morshed's solution to a problem I do not think actually exists in the context on a non-viable chemical process. Hm.
Finding space for the forces
Another problem with the conventional models, according to Dr Morshed, is that, as suggested in his figures 6 and 7 is that the current models do not leave space for the 'intermolecular' [sic, intramolecular] force of attraction in covalent bonds.
In current models, according to Morshed's paper, electrons get in the way of the covalent bond (Morshed, 2020, p.11)
Dr Morshad writes that
According to present structural presentation of shared paired electrons remain at the juncture of the bonded atomic orbital, if they remain like such position they will restrict the Inter [sic] Molecular Force (IMF) between the bonded atomic nuclei because the shared paired electron restricts the attraction force lying at the straight attraction line of the bonded nuclei the shown in (Figure 6a).
Morshed, 2020, p.11
There seem to be several alternative conceptions operating here – reflecting some of the kind of confusions reported in the literature from studies on students' ideas.
Just because the images are static two dimensional representations, this does not mean electrons are envisaged to be stationary at some point on a shell;
and just because we draw representations of atoms on flat paper, this does not mean atoms are flat;
The figure is meant to represent the bond, which is an overall configuration of the nuclei and the electrons, so there is not a distinct intramolecular force operating separately;
Without the electrons there would be no "Inter [sic] Molecular Force (IMF) between the bonded atomic nuclei" as the nuclei repel each other: the bonding electrons do not restrict the intramolecular force (blocking it, because they lie between the nuclei), but are crucial to it existing.
Regarding the first point here, Dr Morshed suggests
Covalent bonds are formed by sharing of electrons between the bonded atoms and the shared paired electrons are formed by contribution of one electron each of the participating atoms. The shared paired electrons remain at the overlapping chamber (at the juncture of the overlapped atomic orbital).
Morshed, 2020, p.9
That is, according to Dr Morshed's account of current atomic theory, in drawing overlapping electron shells, the electrons of the bond which are 'shared' (and that is just a metaphor, of course) are limited to the area shown as overlapping. This is treating an abstract and simplistic representation as if it is realistic. There is no chamber. Indeed, the molecular orbital formed by the overlap of the atomic orbitals will 'allow' the electrons to be likely to be found within quite a (relatively – on an atomic scale) large volume of space around the bond axis. Atomic orbitals that overlap to form molecular orbitals are in effect replaced by those molecular orbitals – the new orbital geometry reflects the new wavefunction that takes into account both electrons in the orbital.
So, if there has been overlap, the contributing atomic orbitals should be considered to have been replaced (not simply formed a chamber where the circles overlap), except of course Dr Morshed 's figures 6 and 7 show shells and do not actually represent the system of atomic orbitals.
Double bonds
This same failure to interpret the intentions and limitation of the simplistic form of representation used in introductory school chemistry leads to similar issues when Dr Morshed considers double bonding.
A new model of atomic structure suggests an odd geometry for pi bonds (Morshed, 2020, p.12)
Dr Morshed objects to the kind of representation on the left in his figure 8 as two electron pairs occupy the same area of overlap ('chamber'),
It is shown for an Oxygen molecule; two electron shared pairs are formed and take place at the overlapping chamber result from the outermost orbital of two bonded Oxygen atoms. But in real séance [sic?] that is impossible because two shared paired electrons cannot remain in a single overlapping chamber because of repulsion among each pairs and among individual electrons.
Morshed, 2020, p.12.
Yet, in the model Dr Morshed employs he had claimed that electron pairs do not repel unless they are aligned to allow a direct line of sight between their CNPs. In any case, the figure he criticises does not show overlapping orbitals, but overlapping L shells. He suggests that the existing models (which of course are not models currently used in chemistry except in introductory classes) imply the double bond in oxygen must be two sigma bonds: "The present structure of O2 molecule show only two pairs of electron with head to head overlapping in the overlapping chamber i.e., two sigma bond together which is impossible" (p.12).
However, this is because a shell type presentation is being used which is suitable for considering whether a bond is single or double (or triple), but no more. In order to discuss sigma and pi bonds with their geometrical and symmetry characteristics, one must work with orbitals, not shells. 6
Yet Dr Morshed has conflated shells and orbitals throughout his paper. His figure 8a that supposedly shows "Present molecular orbital structural showing two shared paired electrons in the same overlapped chamber" does not represent (atomic, let alone molecular) orbitals, and is not intended to suggest that the space between overlapping circles is some kind of chamber.
"The remaining two opposite spin unpaired electrons in the two bonded [sic?] Oxygen's outer- most orbital [sic, shell?] getting little distorted towards the shared paired electrons in their respective atomic orbital then they feel an attraction among the opposite spin electrons thus they make a bond pairs by side to side overlapping forms the pi-bond"
Morshed, 2020, p.12.
It is not at all clear to see how this overlap occurs in this representation (i.e., 8b). Moreover, the unpaired electrons will not "feel an attraction" as they are both negatively charged even if they have anti-parallel spins. The scheme also makes it very difficult to see how the pi bond could have the right symmetry around the bond axis, if the 'new molecular orbital structure' was taken at face value.
Conclusion
Dr Morshed's paper is clearly well meant, but it does not offer any useful new ideas to progress chemistry. It is highly flawed. There is no shame in producing highly flawed manuscripts – no one is perfect, which is why we have peer review to support authors in pointing out weaknesses and mistakes in their work and so allowing them to develop their ideas till they are suitable for publication. Dr Morshed has been badly let down by the publishers and editors of Annals of Atoms and Molecules. I wonder how much he was charged for this lack of service? 7
Publishing a journal paper like this, which is clearly not ready to make a contribution to the scholarly community through publication, does not only do a disservice to the author (who will have this publication in the public domain for anyone to evaluate) but can potentially confuse or mislead students who come across the journal. Confusing shells with orbitals, misrepresenting how ionic bonds form, implying that covalent bonds are due to a force between nuclei, suggesting that electron pairs need not repel each other, suggesting a flat model of the atom with four poles… there are many points in this paper that can initiate or reinforce student misconceptions.
Supposedly, this manuscript was handled by a member of the editorial board, sent to peer reviewers and the publication decision based on those review reports. It is hard to imagine any peer reviewer who is actually an academic chemist (let alone an expert in the topics published in this journal) considering this paper would be publishable, even with extensive major revisions. The whole premise of the paper (that simple representations of atoms with concentric shells of electrons reflect the models of atomic and molecular structure used today in chemistry research) is fundamentally flawed. So:
were there actually any reviews? (Really?)
if so, were the reviews carried out by experts in the field? (Or even graduate chemists or physicists?)
were the reviews positive enough to justify publication?
If the journal feels I am being unfair, then I am happy to publish any response submitted as a comment below.
Dr Menaa, Prof. Ibrahim, Prof. Yoon, Dr Parigger, Dr El-Behaedi…
If you were the Board Member who handled this submission and you feel my criticisms are unfair, please feel free to submit a comment. I am happy to publish your response.
Or, if you were not the Board Member who (allegedly) handled this submission, and would like to make that clear…
Works cited:
Gilbert, W. (1600/2016). On the Magnet, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet of the Earth. A new science, with many both arguments and experiment proofs. (V. Wilmont, Trans.): Lulu.com.
Morshed, A. M. A. (2020a). New Atomic Model with Identical Electrons Position in the Orbital's and Modification of Chemical Bonds and MOT. Annals of Atoms and Molecules, 2(1), 6-13.
1 I thank Professor Eric Scerri of UCLA for bringing my attention to the deliciously named 'Annals of Atoms and Molecules', and this specific contribution.
2 That is my reading of the abbreviation, although the author uses the term a number of times before rather imprecisely defining it: "Similar solution can be made for molecular orbital (MOT) as such as: The molecular orbital (MO) theory…" (p.10).
3 Renormalisation is the name given to a set of mathematical techniques used in areas such as quantum field theory when calculations give implausible infinite results in order to 'lose' the unwanted infinities. Whilst this might seem like cheating – it is tolerated as it works very well.
4 I was intrigued that 'Prof.' Farid Menaa seemed to work for a non-academic institution, as generally companies cannot award the title of Professor. Of course, Prof. Meena may also have an appointment at a university that partners the company, or could have emeritus status having retired from academia.
I found him profiled on another publisher's site as "Professor, Principal Investigator, Director, Consultant Editor, Reviewer, Event Organizer and Entrepreneur,…" who had worked in oncology, dermatology, haemotology (when "he pioneered new genetic variants of stroke in sickle cell anemia patients" which presumably is much more positive than it reads). Reading on, I found he had 'followed' complementary formations in "Medecine [sic], Pharmacy, Biology, Biochemistry, Food Sciences and Technology, Marine Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Nano-Biotechnology, Bio-Computation, and Bio-Statistics" and was "involved in various R&D projects in multiple areas of medicine, pharmacy, biology, genetics, genomics, chemistry, biophysics, food science, and technology". All of which seemed very impressive (nearly as wide a range of expertise as predatory journal publishers claim for me), but made me none the wiser about the source of his Professorial title.
5 Today. Although interestingly, in the first major comprehensive account of magnetism, Gilbert (1600/2016) tended to draw the North-South axis of the earth horizontally in his figures.
6 The representations we draw are simple depictions of something more subtle. If the circles did represent orbitals then they could not show the entire volume of space where the electron might be found (as this is theoretically infinite) but rather an envelope enclosing a volume where there is the highest probability (or 'electron density'). So orbitals will actually overlap to some extent even when simple images suggest otherwise.
Anthropomorphic language refers to non-human entities as if they have human experiences, perceptions, and motivations. Both non-living things and non-human organisms may be subjects of anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism may be used deliberately as a kind of metaphorical language that will help the audience appreciate what is being described because of its similarly to some familiar human experience. In science teaching, and in public communication of science, anthropomorphic language may often be used in this way, giving technical accounts the flavour of a persuasive narrative that people will readily engage with. Anthropomorphism may therefore be useful in 'making the unfamiliar familiar', but sometimes the metaphorical nature of the language may not be recognised, and the listener/reader may think that the anthropomorphic description is meant to be taken at face value. This 'strong anthropomorphism' may be a source of alternative conceptions ('misconceptions') of science.
The first example was from the lead story about 'long COVID'.
Prof. Onur Boyman, Director of the Department of Immunology at the University Hospital, Zurich, was interviewed after his group published a paper suggesting that blood tests may help identify people especially susceptible to developing post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome (PACS) – which has become colloquially known as 'long COVID'.
"We found distinct patterns of total immunoglobulin (Ig) levels in patients with COVID-19 and integrated these in a clinical prediction score, which allowed early identification of both outpatients and hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 that were at high risk for PACS ['long COVID']."
Cervia, Zurbuchen, Taeschler, et al., 2022, p.2
The study reported average patterns of immunoglobulins found in those diagnosed with COVID-19 (due to SARS-CoV-2 infection), and those later diagnosed with PACS. The levels of different types of immunoglobulins (designated as IgM, etc.) were measured,
Differentiating mild versus severe COVID-19, IgM was lower in severe compared to mild COVID-19 patients and healthy controls, both at primary infection and 6-month follow-up… IgG3 was higher in both mild and severe COVID-19 cases, compared to healthy controls …In individuals developing PACS, we detected decreased IgM, both at primary infection and 6-month follow-up… IgG3 tended to be lower in patients with PACS…which was contrary to the increased IgG3 concentrations in both mild and severe COVID-19 cases…
Cervia, Zurbuchen, Taeschler, et al., 2022, p.3
Viruses in a defensive mode
In the interview, Professor Boyman discussed how features of the immune system, and in particular immunoglobulins, were involved in responses to infection, and made the comment:
"IgG3…is smaller than IgM and therefore it is able to go into many more tissues. It is able to cross certain tissue barriers and go into those sites where viruses might actually try to go to and hide"
Prof. Onur Boyman interviewed on 'BBC Inside Science'
This is anthropomorphic as it refers to viruses trying to hide from the immune components. Of course, viruses are not sentient, so they do not try to do anything: they have no intentions. Although viruses might well pass across tissue barriers and move into tissues where they are less likely to come into contact with immunoglobulins, 'hiding' suggests a deliberate behaviour – which is not the case.
Professor Boyman is clearly aware of that, and either deliberately or otherwise was speaking metaphorically. Scientifically literate people would not be misled by this as they would know viruses are not conscious agents. However, learners are not always clear about this.
The bacteria, however, are going on the offensive
The other point I spotted was later in the same programme when the presenter, Gaia Vince, introduced an item about antibiotic resistance:
"Back in my grandparent's time, the world was a much more dangerous place with killer microbes lurking everywhere. People regularly died from toothache, in childbirth, or just a simple scratch that got infected. But at the end of the second world war, doctors had a new miracle [sic] drug called penicillin. Antibiotics have proved a game changer, taking the deadly fear away from common infections. But the microbes did not just accept defeat, they have been mounting their resistance and they are making a comeback."
Gaia Vince presenting 'Inside Science'
Antibiotics are generally ineffective against viruses, but have proved very effective treatments for many bacterial infections, including those that can be fatal when untreated. The functioning of antibiotics can be explained by science in purely natural terms, so the label of 'miracle drugs' is a rhetorical flourish: their effect must have seemed like a miracle when they first came into use, so this can also be seen as metaphoric language.
Bacteria regrouping for a renewed offensive? (Image by WikiImages from Pixabay )
However, again the framing is anthropomorphic. The suggestion that microbes could 'accept defeat' implies they are the kind of entities able to reflect on and come to terms with a situation – which of course they are not. The phrase 'mounting resistance' also has overtones of deliberate action – but again is clearly meant metaphorically.
Again, there is nothing wrong with these kinds of poetic flourishes in presenting science. Most listeners would have heard "microbes did not just accept defeat, they have been mounting their resistance and they are making a comeback" and would have spontaneously understood the metaphoric use of language without suspecting any intention to suggest microbes actually behave deliberately. Such language supports the non-specialist listener in accessing a technical science story.
Some younger listeners, however, may not have a well-established framework for thinking about the nature of an organism that is able to reflect on its situation and actively plan deliberate behaviours. After all, a good deal of children's literature relies on accepting that various organisms, indeed non-living entities such as trains, do have human feelings, motives and behavioural repertoires. (Learners may for example think that evolutionary adaptations, such as having more fur in a cold climate, are mediated by conscious deliberation.) Popular science media does a good job of engaging and enthusing a broad audience in science, but with the caveat that accessible accounts may be open to misinterpretation.
Work cited:
Cervia, C., Zurbuchen, Y., Taeschler, P. et al.(2022) Immunoglobulin signature predicts risk of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nature Communications, 13, 446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27797-1
Being flummoxed by a student question was the inspiration for a teaching metaphor
Keith S. Taber
An artist's impression of the author being lost for words (Image actually by Christian Dorn from Pixabay)
In my teaching on the 'Educational Research' course I used to present a diagram of a shape something like the lemniscate – the infinity symbol, ∞ – and tell students that was the shape their research project and thesis should take. I would suggest this was a kind of visual metaphor.
This may seem a rather odd idea, but I was actually responding to a question I had previously been asked by a student. Albeit, this was a rather deferred response.
'Lost for words'
As a teacher one gets asked all kinds of questions. I've often suggested that preparing for teaching is more difficult than preparing for an examination. When taking an examination it is usually reasonable to assume that the examination question have been set by experts in the subject.
A candidate therefore has a reasonable chance of foreseeing at least the general form of the questions that night asked. There is usually a syllabus or specification which gives a good indication of the subject matter and the kinds of skills expected to be demonstrated – and usually there are past papers (or, if not, specimen papers) giving examples of what might be asked. The documentation reflects some authority's decisions about the bounds of the subject being examined (e.g., what counts as included in 'chemistry' or whatever), the selection of topics to be included in the course, and the level of treatment excepted at this level of study (Taber, 2019). Examiners may try to find novel applications and examples and contexts – but good preparation should avoid the candidate ever being completely stumped and having no basis to try to develop a response.
However, teachers are being 'examined' so to speak, by people who by definition are not experts and so may be approaching a subject or topic from a wide range of different perspectives. In science teaching, one of the key issues is how students do not simply come to class ignorant about topics to be studied, but often bring a wide range of existing ideas and intuitions ('alternative conceptions') that may match, oppose, or simply be totally unconnected with, the canonical accounts.
This can happen in any subject area. But a well prepared teacher, even if never able to have ready answers to all question or suggestions learners might offer, will seldom be lost for words and have no idea how to answer. But I do recall an occasion when I was indeed flummoxed.
I was in what is known as the 'Street' in the main Faculty of Education Building (the Donald McIntyre Building) at Cambridge at a time when students were milling about as classes were just ending and starting. Suddenly out of the crowd a student I recognised from teaching the Educational Research course loomed at me and indicated he wanted to talk. I saw he was clutching a hardbound A4 notebook.
We moved out of the melee to an area where we could talk. He told me he had a pressing question about the dissertation he had to write for his M.Phil. programme.
"What should the thesis look like?"
His question sounded simple enough – "What should the thesis look like?"
Now at one level I had an answer – it should be an A4 document that would be eventually bound in blue cloth with gold lettering on the spine. However, I was pretty sure that was not what he meant.
What does a thesis look like?
I said I was not sure what he meant. He opened his notebook at a fresh double page and started sketching, as he asked me: 'Should the thesis look like this?' as he drew a grid on one page of his book. Whilst I was still trying to make good sense of this option, he started sketching on the facing page. "Or, should it look like this?"
I have often thought back to this exchange as I was really unsure how to respond. He seemed no more able to explain these suggestions than I was able to appreciate how these representations related to my understanding of the thesis. As I looked at the first option I was starting to think in terms of the cells as perhaps being the successive chapters – but the alternative option seemed to undermine this. For, surely, if the question was about whether to have 6 or 8 chapters – a question that has no sensible answer in abstract without considering the specific project – it would have been simpler just to pose the question verbally. Were the two columns (if that is what they were) meant to be significant? Were the figures somehow challenging the usual linear nature of a thesis?
I could certainly offer advice on structuring a thesis, but as a teacher – at least as the kind of constructivist teacher I aspired to be – I failed here. I was able to approach the topic from my own perspective, but not to appreciate the student's own existing conceptual framework and work from there. This if of course what research suggests teachers usually need to do to help learners with alternative conceptions shift their thinking.
Afterwards I would remember this incident (in a way I cannot recall the responses I gave to student questions on hundreds of other occasions) and reflect on it – without ever appreciating what the student was thinking. I know the student had a background in a range of artistic fields including as a composer – and I wondered if this was informing his thinking. Perhaps if I had studied music at a higher level I might have appreciated the question as being along the lines of, say, whether the should the thesis be, metaphorically speaking, in sonata form or better seen as a suite?
I think it was because the question played on my mind that later, indeed several years later, I had the insight that 'the thesis' (a 'typical' thesis) did not look like either of those rectangular shapes, but rather more like the leminscape:
A visual metaphor for a thesis project (after Taber, 2013)
The focus of a thesis
My choice of the leminscate was because its figure-of-eight nature made it two loops which are connected by a point – which can be seen as some kind of focal point of the image:
A thesis project has a kind of focal point
This 'focus' represents the research question or questions (RQ). The RQ are not the starting point of most projects, as good RQ have to be carefully chosen and refined, and that usually take a lot of reading around a topic.
However, they act as a kind of fulcrum around which the thesis is organised because the sections of the thesis leading up to the RQ are building up to them – offering a case for why those particular questions are interesting, important, and so-phrased. And everything beyond that point reflects the RQ, as the thesis then describes how evidence was collected and analysed in order to try to answer the questions.
Two cycles of activity
A thesis project cycles through expansive and focusing phases
Moreover, the research project described in a thesis reflects two cycles of activity.
The first cycle has an expansive phase where the researcher is reading around the topic, and exposing themselves to a wide range of literature and perspectives that might be relevant. Then, once a conceptual framework is developed from this reading (in the literature review), the researcher focuses in, perhaps selecting one of several relevant theoretical perspectives, and informed by prior research and scholarship, crystallises the purpose of the project in the RQ.
Then the research is planned in order to seek to answer the RQ, which involves selecting or developing instruments, going out and collecting data – often quite a substantive amount of data. After this expansive phase, there is another focusing stage. The collected data is then processed into evidence – interpreted, sifted, selected, summarised, coded and tallied, categorised – and so forth – in analysis. The data analysis is summarised in the results, allow conclusions to be formed: conclusions which reflect back to the RQ.
The lemniscate, then, acts a simple visual metaphor that I think acts as a useful device for symbolising some important features of a research project, and so, in one sense at least, what a thesis 'looks' like. If any of my students (or readers) have found this metaphor useful then they have benefited from a rare occasion when a student question left me lost for words.
Is it poor scientific practice to explain away results we would not expect?
Keith S. Taber
how convinced would be be by a student who found an increase in mass after burning some magnesium and argued that this showed that combustion was a process of a substance consuming oxygen as a kind of food
I came across an interesting account of an experiment which seemed to support a hypothesis, but where the results were then explained away to reject the hypothesis.
An experiment to test whether a lodestone buried in iron filings will get heavier
Experimental results always need interpretation
That might seem somewhat dubious scientific practice, but one of the things that becomes clear when science is studied in any depth is that individual experiments seldom directly decide scientific questions. Not only is the common notion that a positive result proves a hypothesis correct over-simplistic, but it is also seldom the case that a single negative result can be assumed to be sufficient to reject a hypothesis. 1
Given that, the reason I thought this report was interesting is that it was published some time ago, indeed in 1600. It also put me in mind of a practical commonly undertaken in school science to demonstrate that combustion involves a substance combining with oxygen. In that practical activity (commonly mislabelled as an 'experiment' 2), magnesium metal (for example) is heated inside a ceramic crucible until it has reacted, and by careful weighing it is found (or perhaps I should say, it should be found, as it can be a challenging practical for the inexperienced) that the material after combustion weighs more than before – as the magnesium has reacted with a substance from the air (oxygen).3 This is said to give support to the oxygen theory of combustion, and to be contrary to the earlier phlogiston theory which considered flammable materials to contain a substance called phlogiston which was released during combustion (such that what remains is of less mass than before).
Testing whether lodestones eat iron
The historical experiment that put me in mind of this involved burying a type of stone known as a lodestone in iron filings. The stone and filings were carefully weighed before burial and then again some months later after being separated. The hypothesis being tested was that the weight of the lodestone would increase, and there would be a corresponding decrease in the mass of the weight of the iron filings. Apparently at the end of the experiment the measurements, strictly at least, suggested that this was what had occurred. Yet, despite this, the author presenting the account dismissed the result – arguing that it was more likely the finding was an artifact of the experimental procedure either not being sensitive enough, or not having been carried out carefully enough.
Explaining away results – in science and in school laboratories
That might seem somewhat against the spirit of science – I wonder if readers of this posting feel that is a valid move to make: to dismiss the results, as if scientists should be fee to pick and chose which results they wish to to take notice of?
But I imagine the parallel situation has occurred any number of times in science classrooms, for example where the teacher responds to students' practical demonstrations that what is left after burning magnesium has less mass than the magnesium had before. Rather than seeing this as a refutation of the oxygen hypothesis (actually now, of course, canonical theory) – and possible support for the notion that phlogiston had been released – the teacher likely explains this away as either a measurement error or, more likely, a failure to retain all of the magnesia [magnesium oxide] in the crucible for the 'after' measurement.
Hungry magnets
The historical example is discussed in William Gilbert's book about magnetism, usually known in English as 'On the magnet'. 4 This is sometimes considered the first science book, and consists of both a kind of 'literature review' of the topic, as well as a detailed report of a great many observations and demonstrations that (Gilbert claims) were original and made by Gilbert himself. There were no professional scientists in 1600, and Gilbert was a physician, a medical practitioner, but he produced a detailed and thoughtful account of his research into magnets and magnetism.
Gilbert's book is fascinating to a modern reader for its mixture of detailed accounts that stand today (and many of which the reader could quite easily repeat) alongside some quite bizarre ideas; and as an early example of science writing that mixes technical accounts with language that sometimes seems quite unscientific by today's norms – including (as well as a good deal of personification and anthropomorphism) some very unprofessional remarks about some other scholars he considers mistaken. Gilbert certainly has little time for philosophers ('philosophizers') who set out theories about natural phenomena without ever undertaking any observations or tests for themselves.
Lodestones
Magnetism has been known since antiquity. In particular, some samples of rock (usually samples of magnetite, now recognised as Fe3O4) were found to attract both each other and samples of iron, and could be used as a compass as they aligned, more or less, North-South when suspended, or when floated in water (in a makeshift 'boat'). Samples of this material, these naturally occurring magnets, were known as lodestones.
Yet the nature of magnetism, seemingly an occult power that allowed a stone to attract an iron nail, or the earth to turn a compass needle, without touching it, remained a mystery. Some of the ideas that had been suggested may seem a little odd today.
Keepers as nutrients?
So, for example, it is common practice to store magnets with 'keepers'. A horseshoe magnet usually has a steel rod placed across its ends, and bar magnets are usually stored in pairs with steel bars making a 'circuit' by connecting between the N of one magnet with the S of the other. But why?
One idea, that Gilbert dismisses is that the magnet (lodestone) in effect needs a food source to keep up its strength,
"The loadstone is laid up in iron filings, not that iron is its food; as though loadstone were alive and needed feeding, as Cardan philosophizes; nor yet that so it is delivered from the inclemency of the weather (for which cause it as well as iron is laid up in bran by Scaliger; mistakenly, however, for they are not preserved well in this way, and keep for years their own fixed forms): nor yet, since they remain perfect by the mutual action of their powders, do their extremities waste away, but are cherished & preserved, like by like."
Gilbert, 1600 – Book 1, Chapter 16.
Girolamo Cardano was an Italian who had written about the difference between amber (which can attract small objects due to static electrical charges) and lodestones, something that Gilbert built upon. However, Gilbert was happy to point out when he thought 'Cardan' was mistaken.
An experiment to see if iron filings will feed a magnet
Gilbert reports an experiment carried out by Giambattista della Porta. Porta's own account is that:
"Alexander Aphrodiseus in the beginning of his Problems, enquires wherefore the Loadstone onely draws Iron, and is fed or helped by the fillings of Iron; and the more it is fed, the better it will be: and therefore it is confirmed by Iron. But when I would try that, I took a Loadstone of a certain weight, and I buried it in a heap of Iron-filings, that I knew what they weighed; and when I had left it there many months, I found my stone to be heavier, and the Iron-filings lighter: but the difference was so small, that in one pound I could finde no sensible declination; the stone being great, and the filings many: so that I am doubtful of the truth."
Porta, 1658: Book 7, Chapter 50
Gilbert reports Porta's experiment in his own treatise, but adds potential explanations of why the iron filings had slightly lost weight (it is very easy to lose some of the material during handling), and why the magnet might be slightly heavier (it could have become coated in some material during its time buried),
"Whatever things, whether animals or plants, are endowed with life need some sort of nourishment, by which their strength not only persists but grows firmer and more vigorous. But iron is not, as it seemed to Cardan and to Alexander Aphrodiseus, attracted by the loadstone in order that it may feed on shreds of it, nor does the loadstone take up vigour from iron filings as if by a repast on victuals [i.e., a meal of food]. Since Porta had doubts on this and resolved to test it, he took a loadstone of ascertained weight, and buried it in iron filings of not unknown weight; and when he had left it there for many months, he found the stone of greater weight, the filings of less. But the difference was so slender that he was even then doubtful as to the truth. What was done by him does not convict the stone of voracity [greediness, great hunger], nor does it show any nutrition; for minute portions of the filings are easily scattered in handling. So also a very fine dust is insensibly born on a loadstone in some very slight quantity, by which something might have been added to the weight of the loadstone but which is only a surface accretion and might even be wiped off with no great difficulty."
Gilbert, 1600 – Book 2, Chapter 25.
Animistic thinking
To a modern reader, the idea that a lodestone might keep up its strength by eating iron filings seems very fanciful – and hardly scientific. To refer to the stone feeding, taking food, or being hungry, is animistic – treating the stone as though it is a living creature. We might wonder if this language is just being used metaphorically, as it seems unlikely that intelligent scholars of the 16th Century could actually suspect a stone might be alive. Yet, as Gilbert points out, there was a long tradition of considering that the lodestone, being able to bring about movement, had a soul, and Gilbert himself seemed to feel this was not so 'absurd'.
A reasonable interpretation?
We should always be aware of the magnitude of likely errors in our measurements, and not too easily accept results at the margins of what can be measured. Gilbert's suggestions for why the test of whether mass would be transferred from the iron to the magnet might have given flawed positive results seem convincing. It would be easy to lose some of the filings in the experiment: especially if the "heap of Iron-filings" was left for several months without any containment! And the lodestone could indeed easily acquire some extraneous material that needed to be cleaned off to ensure a valid weighing. As the lodestone attracts iron, all of the filings would need to be carefully cleaned from it (and returned to the 'heap' before the re-weighing).
But, I could not help but wonder if, in part at least, I found Gilbert's explaining away of the results as reasonable, simply because I found the premise of the iron acting as a kind of food as ridiculous. We should bear in mind that although the predicted change in mass was motivated by a notion of the magnet needing nutrition, that might not be the only scenario which might give rise to the same prediction. 1 After all, how convinced would be be by a student who
suggested combustion was a process of a substance consuming oxygen as a kind of food, and
therefore predicted that magnesium would be found to have got heavier after a good meal, and
subsequently found an increase in mass after burning some magnesium, and
argued that this gave strong support for the oxygen-as-food principle?
Coda
It is rather difficult for us today to really judge how language was used centuries ago. Do these natural philosophers talking of magnets eating iron mean this literally, or is it just figurative – intended as a metaphor that readers would understand suggested that there was a process somewhat akin to when a living being eats? 5 Some of them seemed quite serious about assigning souls to entities we today would conspire obviously inanimate. But we should be careful of assuming apparently incredible language was meant, or understood, literally.
In the same week as I was drafting this posting I read an article in Chemistry World about how the heavier elements are produced, which quoted Professor Brian Metzer, physicist at Columbia University,
"What makes the gamma-ray burst in both of these cases [merging neutron stars and the collapse of large rapidly rotating stars] is feeding a newly-formed black hole matter at an extremely high rate…The process that gives rise to the production of this neutron-rich material is actually outflows from the disc that's feeding the black hole."
Brian Metzer quoted in Wogan, 2022
If we would be confident that Professor Metzer meant 'feeding a black hole' to be understood figuratively, we should be careful to reserve judgement on how the feeding of lodestones was understood when Porta and Gilbert were writing.
Sources cited:
Gilbert, W. (1600/1900). On the Magnet, Magnetick Bodies also, and on the great magnet of the earth; a new physiology, demonstrated by many arguments & experiments (S. P. Thompson, Trans. Project Gutenberg ed.). [Available as a free e-book at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33810/33810-h/33810-h.htm]
Wogan, T. (2022, 5th Janaury 2022). How elements are made beyond the stars. Chemistry World, 19, 28-31.
Notes:
1 Strictly scientific tests never 'prove' or 'disprove' anything.
The notion of 'proof' is fine in the context of purely theoretical disciplines such as in mathematics or logic, but not in science which tests ideas empirically. Experimental results always underdetermine theories (that is, it is always possible to think up other theories which also fit the results, so a result never 'proves' anything). Apparently negative results do not refute ('disprove') a theory either, as any experimental test of a hypothesis also depends upon other factors (Has the researcher been sloppy? Is the measuring instrument valid – and correctly calibrated? Are any simplifying assumptions reasonable in the context…). So experimental results offer support for, or bring into question, specific theoretical ideas, without ever being definitive.
2 An experiment is undertaken to test a hypothesis. Commonly in school practical work 'experiments' are carried out to demonstrate an accepted principle, such that it is already determined what the outcome 'should' be – students may have already been told the expected outcome, it appears i n their textbooks, and the title of the activity may be suggestive ('to show that mass increases on combustion'). Only if there is a genuine uncertainty about the outcome should the activity be labelled an experiment – e.g., it has been suggested that combustion is like the fuel eating oxygen, in which case things should be heavier after burning – so let's weigh some magnesium, burn it, and then re-weight what we have left (dephlogisticated metal?; compound of metal with oxygen?; well-fed metal?)
3 Mass and weight are not the same thing. However, in practice, measurements of weight made in the laboratory can be assumed as proxy measurements for mass.
4 As was the norm in European scholarship at that time, Gilbert wrote his treatise in Latin – allowing scholars in different countries to read and understand each other's work. The quotations given here are from the 1900 translation into English by S.P. Thompson.
5 Such metaphors can act as communication tools in 'making the unfamiliar familiar' and as thinking tools to help someone pose questions (hypotheses?) for enquiry. There is always a danger, however, that once such figures of speech are introduced they can channel thinking, and by providing a way of talking about and thinking about some phenomena they can act as obstacles to delving deeper in their nature (Taber & Watts, 1996).
Anthropomorphism is the name given treating non-human entities as if they were human actors. An example of anthropomorphic language would be "the atom wants to donate an electron so that it can get a full outer shell" (see for example: 'A sodium atom wants to donate its electron to another atom'). In an example such as that, an event that would be explained in terms of concepts such as force and energy in a scientific account (the ionisation of an atom) is instead described as if the atom is a conscious agent that is aware of its status, has preferences, and acts to bring about desired ends.
Of course, an atom is not a complex enough entity to have mental experience that allows it to act deliberately in the world, so why might someone use such language?
Perhaps, if the speaker was a young learner, because they have not been taught the science.
Perhaps a non-scientist might use such language because they can only make sense of the abstract event in more familiar terms.
But what if the speaker was a scientist – a science teacher or a research scientist?
When fellow professionals (e.g., scientists) talk to each other they may often use a kind of shorthand that is not meant to be taken literally (e.g., 'the molecule wants to be in this configuration') simply because it can shorten and simplify more technical explanations that both parties understand. But when a teacher is talking to learners or a scientist is trying to explain their ideas to the general public, something else may be going on.
Anthropomorphism in science communication and education
In science teaching or science communication (scientists communicating science to the public) there is often a need to present abstract or complex ideas in ways that are accessible to the audience. At one level, teaching is about shifting what is to be taught from being unfamiliar to learners to being familiar, and one way to 'make the unfamiliar familiar' is to show it is in some sense like something already familiar.
Therefore there is much use of simile and analogy, and of telling stories that locate the focal material to be learned within a familiar narrative. Anthropomorphism is often used in this way. Inanimate objects may be said to want or need or try (etc.) as the human audience can relate to what it is to want or need or try.
Such techniques can be very useful to introduce novel ideas or phenomena in ways that are accessible and/or memorable ('weak anthropomorphism'). However, sometimes the person receiving these accounts may not appreciate their figurative nature as pedagogic / communicative aids, and may mistake what is meant to be no more than a starting point, a way into a new topic or idea, as being the scientific account itself. That is, these familiarisation techniques can work so well that the listener (or reader) may feel satisfied with them as explanatory accounts ('strong anthropomorphism').
Evolution – it's just natural (selection)
A particular issue arises with evolution, when often science only has hypothetical or incomplete accounts of how and why specific features or traits have been selected for in evolution. It is common for evolution to be misunderstood teleologically – that is, as if evolution was purposeful and nature has specific end-points in mind.
The scientific account of evolution is natural selection, where none of genes, individual specimens, populations or species are considered to be deliberately driving evolution in particular directions (present company excepted perhaps – as humans are aware of evolutionary processes, and may be making some decisions with a view to the long-term future). 1
Yet describing evolutionary change in accord with the scientific account tends to need complex and convoluted language (Taber, 2017). Teleological and anthropomorphic shorthand is easier to comprehend – even if it puts a burden on the communicatee to translate the narrative into a more technical account.
What the virus tries to do
The first example from the recent Science in Action episode related to the COVID pandemic, and the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This was the lead story on the broadcast/podcast, in particular how the travel ban imposed on Southern Africa (a case of putting the lid on the Petri dish after the variant had bolted?) was disrupting supplies of materials needed to address the pandemic in the countries concerned.
This was followed by a related item:
"Omicron contains many more mutations than previous variants. However scientists have produced models in the past which can help us understand what these mutations do. Rockefeller University virologist Theodora Hatziioannou produced one very similar to Omicron and she tells us why the similarities are cause for concern."
"When you give the virus the opportunity to infect so many people, then of course it is going to try not only every possible mutation, but every possible combination of mutations, until it finds one that really helps it overcome our defences."
Dr Theodora Hatziioannou interviewed on Science in Action
Dr Theodora Hatziioannou Research Associate Professor Laboratory of Retrovirology The Rockefeller University
I am pretty sure that Dr Hatziioannou does not actually think that 'the virus' (which of course is composed of myriad discrete virus particles) is trying out different mutations intending to stop once it finds one which will overcome human defences. I would also be fairly confident that in making this claim she was not intending her listeners to understand that the virus had a deliberate strategy and was systematically working its way through a plan of action. A scientifically literature person should readily interpret the comments in a natural selection framework (e.g., 'random' variation, fitness, differential reproduction). In a sense, Dr Hatziioannou's comments may be seen as an anthropomorphic analogy – presenting the 'behaviour' of the virus (collectively) by analogy with human behavior.
Yet, as a science educator, such comments attract my attention as I am well aware that school age learners and some adult non-scientists may well understand evolution to work this way. Alternative conceptions of natural selection are very common. Even when students have been taught about natural selection they may misunderstand the process as Lamarckian (the inheritance of acquired characteristics – see for example 'The brain thinks: grow more fur'). So, I wonder how different members of the public hearing this interview will understand Dr Hatziioannou's analogy.
Even before COVID-19 came along, there was a tendency for scientists to describe viruses in such terms as as 'smart', 'clever' and 'sneaky' (e.g., 'So who's not a clever little virus then?'). The COVID pandemic seems to have unleashed a (metaphorical) pandemic of public comments about what the virus wants, and what it tries to achieve, and so forth. When a research scientist talks this way, I am fairly sure it is intended as figurative language. I am much less sure when, for example, I hear a politician telling the public that the virus likes cold weather ('What COVID really likes').
Vulture bees have the guts for it
The other item that struck me concerned vulture bees.
"Laura Figueroa from University of Massachusetts in Amhert [sic] in the US, has been investigating bees' digestive systems. Though these are not conventional honey bees, they are Costa Rican vulture bees. They feed on rotting meat, but still produce honey."
Bees do not actually make reasoned choices about their diets (Original image by Oldiefan from Pixabay)
The background is that although bees are considered (so I learned) to have evolved from wasps, and to all have become vegetarians, there are a few groups of bees that have reverted to the more primitive habits of eating meat. To be fair to them, these bees are not cutting down the forests to set up pasture and manage livestock, but rather take advantage of the availability of dead animals in their environment as a source of protein.
These vulture bees (or carrion bees) are able to do this because their gut microbiomes consist of a mix of microbes that can support them in digesting meat, allowing them to be omnivores. This raises the usual kind of 'chicken and egg' question 1 thrown up by evolutionary developments: how did vegetarian bees manage to shift their diet: the more recently acquired microbes would not have been useful or well-resourced whilst the bees were still limiting themselves to a plant-based diet, but the vegetarian bees would not have been able to digest carrion before their microbiomes changed.
As part of the interview, Dr Figueroa explaied:
"These are more specialised bees that once they were vegetarian for a really long time and they actually decided to change their ways, there's all of this meat in the forest, why not take advantage? I find that super-fascinating as well, because how do these shifts happen?
Because the bees, really when we are thinking about them, they've got access to this incredible resource of all of the flowering plants that are all over the world, so then why switch? Why make this change?
Over evolutionary time there are these mutations, and, you know, maybe they'd have got an inkling for meat, it's hard to know how exactly that happened, but really because it is a constant resource in the forest, there's always, you know, this might sound a little morbid but there's always animals that are dying and there's always this turn over of nutrients that can happen, and so potentially this specialised group of bees realised that, and maybe there's enough competition on the flowers that they decided to switch. Or, they didn't decide, but it happened over evolutionary time.
Dr Laura Figueroa interviewed on Science in Action
Dr Figueroa does not know exactly how this happened – more research is needed. I am sure Dr Figueroa does not think the bees decided to change their ways in the way that a person might decide to change their ways – perhaps deciding to get more exercise and go to bed earlier for the sake of their health. I am also sure Dr Figueroa does not think the bees realised that there was so much competition feeding on the flowers that it might be in their interests to consider a change of diet, in the way that a person might decide to change strategy based on an evaluation of the competition. These are anthropomorphic figures of speech.
Dr Laura Figueroa, NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Biology Department of Entomology, Cornell University / University of Massachusetts in Amherst
As she said "they didn't decide, but it happened over evolutionary time". Yet it seems so natural to use that kind of language, that is to frame the account in a narrative that makes sense in terms of how people experience their lives.
Again, the scientifically literate should appreciate the figurative use of language for what it is, and it is difficult to offer an accessible account without presenting evolutionary change as purposive and the result of deliberation and strategy. Yet, I cannot help wondering if this kind of language may reinforce some listeners' alternative conceptions about how natural selection works.
Work cited:
Dawkins, R. (1976/1989). The Selfish Gene (New ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1 The 'selfish' gene made famous by Dawkins (1976/1989) is not really selfish in the sense a person might be – rather this was an analogy which helped shift attention from changes at the individual or species level when trying to understand how evolution occurs, to changes in the level of distinct genes. If a mutation in a specific gene leads to a change in the carrying organism that (in turn) leads to that specimen having greater fitness then the gene itself has an increased chance of being replicated. So, from the perspective of focusing on the genes, the change at the species level can be seen as a side effect of the 'evolution' of the gene. The gene may be said to be (metaphorically) selfish because it does not change for the benefit of the organism, but to increase its own chances of being replicated. Of course, that is also an anthropomorphic narrative – actually the gene does not deliberately mutate, has no purpose, has no notion of replication, indeed, does not even 'know' it is a gene, and so forth.
2 Such either/or questions can be understood as posing false dichotomies (here, either the bees completely changed their diets before their microbiomes or their microbiomes changed dramatically before their diets shifted) when what often seems most likely is that change has been slow and gradual.
