Category: humanising science

The earth's one long-term objective

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.

The programme covers various aspects of culture.

BBC 'In our time'

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:

  • The earth has an objective.
  • The earth tries to achieve its objective.

Read about teleology

Read about anthropomorphism

A flawed scientific account?

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).

Read about pseudo-explanations

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.

Work cited:

Taber, K. S. and Watts, M. (1996) The secret life of the chemical bond: students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding, International Journal of Science Education, 18 (5), pp.557-568.

Note

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.

Chemistry: What's love got to do with it?

Keith S. Taber

*

I've just seen* an article in Chemistry: Bulgarian Journal of Science Education describing how students intending to be teachers were introduced to ideas about intermolecular bonding by analogy with attraction between people (Karakaş, 2012). In this analogy nuclei are seen as female and electrons as male, and so sometimes the electrons may take an interest in nuclei other than their own, so to speak: hydrogen bonding is seen as a "form of dipole-dipole interactions, caused by highly electronegative atoms (caused by couples with highly attractive females)", occurring between hydrogen and

"oxygen (couple where the nucleus is Maria Sharapova), fluorine (couple where the nucleus is Kim Kardashian) or nitrogen (couple where the nucleus is Beyonce)" (p.345).

This seems to be a variation on an approach that has been around at least since I started teaching (I remember comparing displacement reactions to interactions between couples at parties), and is clearly meant to be a fun idea, as well as having a motivation in terms of making abstract chemical ideas relevant by comparison with something familiar. The study reported was undertaken in Turkey, and I wondered about the cultural acceptability of this approach these days in different contexts. So Karakaş reports that

"the instructor said in a patriarchal society such as Turkey, the male is supposed to take care of the female. Then the instructor said that basically, the male has to revolve around the female like an electron revolving around a nucleus" (p.343).

I suspect that in many countries it might be considered quite inappropriate to make such a comment about gender roles, at least not without a clear sense of intended satire. More significantly, I wonder how acceptable it is to talk about the relative sexual attractiveness of different people – is that politically correct? Especially if the idea was used with adolescent students, many of whom may well be suffering issues relating to their perceptions of their own attractiveness.

Finally, of course, the basic premise, that sexual orientation matches the principle found with electrical charge – opposite charges attract, similar charges repel – would certainly be suspect in the context where I work (where a current issue of public debate is whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry rather than just register civil partnerships). In some ways these complications are a shame, as the analogy will be seen as fun by many learners, and it certainly is something most learners will relate to. This example reminds us that even if chemistry itself can be seen as largely culture-free, teaching and learning of science always takes place in a cultural context that also influences what can be considered good teaching.

Reference:
Karakaş, M. (2012). Teaching Intermolecular Forces with Love Analogy: A Case Study. Chemistry: Bulgarian Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 341-348.

* Previously published at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/science-education-research: 9th May 2015

So who's not a clever little virus then?

The COVID-19 virus is not a clever or sneaky virus (but it is not dumb either) 1

Keith S. Taber

Image by Syaibatul Hamdi from Pixabay 

One of the things I have noticed in recent news reports about the current pandemic is the tendency to justify our susceptibility to the COVID-19 coronavirus by praising the virus. It is an intelligent and sneaky foe, and so we have to outwit it.

But no, it is not. It is a virus. It's a tiny collection of nucleic material packaged in a way that it can get into the cells which contain the chemical resources required for the virus to replicate. It is well suited to this, but there is nothing intelligent about the behaviour. (The virus does not enter the cell to reproduce any more than an ice cube melts to become water; or a hot cup of coffee radiates energy to cool down; or a toddler trips over to graze its knee rather than because gravity acts on it.) The virus is not clever nor sneaky. That would suggest it can adapt its behaviour, after reflecting upon feedback from its interactions with the environment. It cannot. Over generations viruses change – but with a lot of variations that fail to replicate (the thick ones in the family?)

Yet any quick internet search finds references to the claimed intellectual capacities of these deadly foes. Now of course an internet search can find references to virtually anything – but I am referring to sites we might expect to be authoritative, or at least well-informed. And this is not just a matter of a hasty response to the current public health emergency as it is not just COVID 19, but, it seems, viruses generally that are considered intellectually superior.

Those smart little viruses

The site Vaccines Today has a headline in a posting from 2014, that "Viruses are 'smart', so we must be smarter", basing its claims on a lecture by Colin Russell, Royal Society University Research Fellow at Cambridge University. It reports that "Dr Russell says understanding how 'clever' viruses are can help us to outsmart them". (At least there are 'scare quotes' in some of these examples.)

An article from 2002 in an on-line journal has the title "The contest between a clever virus and a facultatively clever host". Now I have moaned about the standard of many new internet journals, but this is the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, and the article is in volume 95, so I think it is safe to apply the descriptor 'well-established' to this journal.

A headline in Science news for Students (published by Society for Science & the Public) from 2016 reads "Sneaky! Virus sickens plants, but helps them multiply". I am sure it would not take long to find many other examples. An article in Science refers to a "nasty flu virus".

Sneaky viruses

COVID-19 is a sneaky virus according to a doctor writing in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Quite a few viruses seem to be sneaky – the the human papillomavirus is according to an article in the American Journal of Bioethics. The World Health Organisation considers that a virus that causes swine fever, H1N1, is sneaky according to an article in Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, something also reported by the BMJ.

There are many references in the literature to clever viruses, such as Epstein‐Barr virus according to a piece in the American Journal of Transplantation. The Hepatitis C virus is clever according to an article in Clinical Therapeutics.

Science communication as making the unfamiliar, familiar

Science communication is a bit like teaching in that the purpose of communication is often to be informative (rather than say, social cohesion, like a lot of everyday conversation {and, by the way,it was another beautiful day here in Cambridgeshire today, blue sky – was it nice where you are?}) and indeed to make the unfamiliar, familiar. Sometimes we can make the unfamiliar familiar by showing people the unfamiliar and pointing it out. 'This is a conical flask'. Often, however, we cannot do that – it is hard to show someone hyperconjugation or hysteresis or a virus specimen. Then we resort to using what is familiar, and employing the usual teacher tricks of metaphor, analogy, simile, modelling, graphics, and so forth. What is familiar to us all is human behaviour, so personification is a common technique. What the virus is doing, we might suggest, is hijacking the cell's biochemical machinery, as if it is a carefully planned criminal operation.

Strong anthropomorphism and dead metaphors

This is fine as far as it goes – that is, if we use such techniques as initial pedagogic steps, as starting points to develop scientific understanding. But often the subsequent stage does not happen. Perhaps that is why there are so many dead metaphors in the language – words introduced as metaphors, which over time have simple come to be take on a new literal meaning. Science does its fair share of borrowing – as with charge (when filling a musket or canon). Dead metaphors are dead (that is metaphorical, of course, they were never actually alive) because we simply fail to notice them as metaphors any more.

There are probably just as many references to 'clever viruses' referring to computer viruses as to microbes – which is interesting as computer viruses were once only viruses metaphorically, but are now accepted as being another type of virus. They have become viruses by custom and practice, and social agreement.

Whoever decided to first refer to the covalent bond in terms of sharing presumably did not mean this in the usual social sense, but the term has stuck. The problem in education (and so, presumably, public communication of science) is that once people think they have an understanding, an explanation that works for them, they will no longer seek a more scientific explanation.

So if the teacher suggests an atom is looking for another electron (a weak form of anthropomorphism, clearly not meant to be taken too seriously – atoms are not entities able to look for anything) then there is a risk that students think they know what is going on, and so never seek any further explanation. Weak anthropomorphism becomes strong anthropomorphism: the atom (or virus) behaves like a person because it has needs and desires just like anyone else.

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay 

Why does it matter?

Perhaps in our current situation this is not that important – the public health emergency is a more urgent issue than the public understanding of the science. But it does matter in the long term. Viruses are not clever – they have evolved over billions of years, and a great many less successful iterations are no longer with us. The reason it matters is because evolution is often not well understood.

As an article in Evolution News and Science Today (a title that surely suggests a serious science periodical about evolution) tells us again that "Viruses are, to all appearances, very clever little machines" and asks "do they give evidence of intelligent design" (that is, rather than Darwinian natural selection, do they show evidence of having an intelligent designer?) After exploring some serious aspects of the science of viruses, the article concludes: "So it seems that viruses are intelligently designed" – that is, a position at odds with the scientific understanding that is virtually a consensus view based on current knowledge. Canonical science suggests that natural processes are able to explain evolution. But these viruses are so clever they must surely have been designed (Borg technology, perhaps?)

This is why I worry when I hear that viruses are these intelligent, deliberate agents that are our foes in some form of biological warfare. It is a dangerous way of thinking. So, I'm concerned when I read, for example, that the cytomegalovirus is not just a clever virus but a very clever virus. Indeed, according to an article in Cell Host & Microbe "CMV is a very clever virus that knows more about the host immune system and cell biology than we do". Hm.

(Read about 'anthropomorphism')

Footnote:

1. The subheading was amended on 4th October 2021, after it was quite rightly pointed out to me that the original version, "COVID-19 is not a clever or sneaky virus (but it is not dumb either)", incorrectly conflated the disease with the virus.

An element needs a certain number of electrons

An element needs a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell

Keith S. Taber

Bert was a participant in the Understanding Science project. In Y10 Bert was talking about how he had been studying electrolysis in class. Bill had described electrolysis as "where different elements are, are taken out from a compound", but it transpired that Bert thought that "a compound is just a lot of different elements put together"*. He seemed to have a tentative understanding that electrolysis could only be used to separate elements in some compounds.

if they're positive and negative then they would be able to be separated into different ones.

So some things are, some things aren't?

Yeah, it matters how many electrons that they have.

Ah. [pause, c.3s] So have you got any examples of things that you know would definitely be positive and negative?

Well I could tell you what happens.

Yeah, go on then.

Well erm, well if a, if an element gives away, electrons, then it becomes positive. But if it gains, then it becomes negative. Because the electrons are negative, so if they gain more, they just go a bit negative.

Yeah. So why would an element give away or gain some electrons? Why would it do that?

Because erm, it needs a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell. It matters on what part of the periodic table they are.

Okay, let me be really awkward. Why does it need a certain number of electrons in the outer shell?

[Pause, c.2 s]

Erm, well, I don't know. It just – 

So Bert thought that an element "needs a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell" depending upon it's position in the periodic table, but he did not seem to recall having been given any reason why this was. The use of the term 'needs' is an example of anthropomorphism, which is commonly used by students talking about atoms and molecules. Often this derives from language used by teachers to help humanise the science, and provide a way for students to make sense of the abstract ideas. If Bert comes to feel this is a sufficient explanation, then talk of what an element needs can come to stand in place of learning a more scientifically acceptable explanation, and so can act as a grounded learning impediment.

References to atoms needing a certain number of electrons is often used as an explanatory principle (the full shells explanatory principle) considered to explain why bonding occurs, why reactions occur and so forth.

Bert's final comment in the short extract above seems to reflect a sense of 'well that's just the way the world is'. It is inevitable that if we keep asking someone a sequence of 'well, why is that' question when they tell us about their understanding of the world, they eventually reach the limits of their understanding. (This tendency has been labelled 'the explanatory gestalt of essence'.) Ultimately, even science has to accept the possibility that eventually we reach answers and can not longer explain further – that's just the way the world is. Research suggests that some students seem to reach the 'it's just natural' or 'well that's just the way it is' point when teachers might hope they would be looking for further levels of explanation. This may link to when phenomena fit well with the learner's intuitive understanding of the world, or tacit knowledge.

Bert's reference to an element needing a certain amount of electrons in the outer shell also seems to confuse description at two different levels: he explicitly refer to substance (element), when he seems to mean a quanticle (atom). Element refers to the substance, at the macroscopic level of materials that can be handled in the laboratory, whilst an atom of the element (which might better be considered to gain or lose electrons) is part of the theoretical model of matter at a submicroscopic level, used by chemists as a basis for explaining much macroscopic, observed behaviour of samples of substances.