Would it have been unethical if Einstein had taught Quantum Mechanics for money?

[Boojatta]

First there's the general issue: is it unethical for a person to teach something that the person doesn't believe if the person is doing it for money?

Next there's the question, when Quantum Mechanics is taught, of whether or not it is taught as being true.

Finally, there is a question of how development would occur in an ideal world. Even if Quantum Mechanics is false, isn't it possible that it could be a stepping stone to a true theory? Also, isn't it possible that teaching Quantum Mechanics to people will enable them to prove that it is false?

[bluerum]

1. Quantum mechanics is solid and well established. It is used to

design lasers, atomic clocks, and for better or worse, nuclear weapons.

I am sure that there are many more uses that I am not aware of, but the point is that quantum mechanics is a science. The ambiguities inherent in quantum mechanics are a characteristics of it. They in no way indicate that the idea of quantum mechanics is somehow false.

[Igel]

2. No. Faculty frequently teach things they believe to be false.

Frequently it's close enough, or a stepping stone. They usually don't bother to say it's flawed.

Sometimes they teach things that are false, knowing they're false, but with no other option: it's all there is, flawed or not. They say it's a crock, but what can you do?

Sometimes the difference between 'believe' and 'know' is a relative matter. My faculty fervently believed some theoretical points to be false; they didn't teach them, and thought it unwise to even let the students know what others held to be true. Imagine their students' surprise when they went to a conference and found that 80% of the field *does* believed these things to be true, they're asked about them in job interviews, but they've never even *heard* of them.

The faculty believed it unethical to teach things they thought false; it turned out to be unethical *not* to teach them, leaving the students in a state of pious ignorance.

[Democrats_win]

3. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect.

Most QM books have an introductory chapter that talks about the concept that energy is quantized which comes from Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect. This is a foundational concept in QM. However, he did disagree about another essential part of QM.

At the time, Grad students were learning QM on their own since their professors didn't know it. So Einstein would be a good source of info for the grad students. He certainly could present the material and give the pros and cons.

On the other hand, wouldn't you have loved to learn General Relativity from Einstein? That would be a better use of his talents. It is simply brilliant and inspirational that he went beyond the restrictions of the Special Theory of Relativity and demanded that a broader, General Theory apply to all reference frames whether they were inertial or not. Of course there's still that little problem of squaring QM with the General Theory.

That's where the last sentence of your post comes in. But it doesn't seem to me that his apparently wrong objections to QM would solve this problem.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. my 2c worth...

Is it unethical for a person to teach something that the person doesn't believe
Outside of religious tuition, no. I had a history teacher who taught me about the racial fantasies of the Nazis: Happily, we hasn't a Nazi himself, but it was certainly a lesson worth teaching. Facts, theories and beliefs should all be taught - the trick is to make it clear which is which.

The question of when Quantum Mechanics is taught, of whether or not it is taught as being true
QM is the closest thing to a 'complete' theory of the subatomic universe that a non-specialist might actually begin to understand: whilst some newer models might be more accurate, they are seriously involved. I'd compare it to learning how to drive: You don't (I hope!) get taught that you can slipstream at 150mph to slingshot into a corner, even though it's true - most people don't need that.

Even if Quantum Mechanics is false, isn't it possible that it could be a stepping stone to a true theory?
Yes, there will probably be further theories after QM. Just as the Earth-centric universe was refined into the heliocentric one, then refined by Kepler to add non-spherical orbits, and then by Einstein to add relativity; so subatomic theory will be refined, with each generation of the theory being more complete than the last. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" was how Newton put it, and who are we to argue?

isn't it possible that teaching Quantum Mechanics to people will enable them to prove that it is false?
Only time will tell. But probably. :D Or at least, it will be found to be incomplete...

[TheBaldyMan]

5. people don't 'believe' in QM in the same way as religious belief.

Science is a process not a belief system. It is as nonsensical as professing belief in literature or art.

[Vidar]

6. Check out Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions",

one of the seminal tests for philosophy of science. Science is very much a belief system. Fortunately, it is a self-correcting, evolutionary belief system.

[TheBaldyMan]

7. I'd say science is an evolutionary self-correcting process, rather than a belief system

Scientific knowledge is the likeliest explanation considering existing empirical evidence, belief can be left out of the process entirely.

I would go even further and state that science is not a philosopy it is a method. Objectivity must be preserved or the validity of the scientific method is lost.

on edit: I have to admit complete ignorance of Mr. Kuhn's book.

[Finder]

8. Agree...

Those that state otherwise are either ignorant of the scientific method or simply trying to make science an enemy of belief.

[Vidar]

10. I have a Master's in Experimental Psychology and am reasonably

acquainted with the scientific method, as was Mr. Kuhn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

[TheBaldyMan]

14. Interesting article but I would still remain biased for objectivity

Kuhn's position on the history and philosophy of science in my view is more an examination of 'How did we get here?' mixed in with the ethical aspect of scientific enquiry you could add "Could we have taken a better path?" and more intriguingly "Where might we go?". These are valid questions and ones that need to be asked.

However in my view this is not actually doing science. That is more along the lines of "What the hell is going on?" or "I'm confused, why did that happen?".

I don't envy your position as an experimental psychologist, you must know far better than I do the pitfalls and frustrations of extremely complex systems. The multi-variate analysis involved puts most physics experiments to shame. Even your variables have variables!

When I am talking about science I am only considering the drudgery of scientific enquiry within the framework of peer review and iterative analysis of observed data.

However I am grateful for the link and you have got me thinking about science in a wider context. I do tend to view through a very restricted frame when it comes to the technical considerations of actual investigation.

[Vidar]

15. Very thoughtful analysis on your part. His point (& mine) was not

that science is not objective: verifiability through the scientific method & peer review does provide that. However, very important questions as to research funding & what gets published are fraught with more "human" variables. The history of science is filled with quaint notions, which seem absurd in retrospect, but actually fit the facts then available & were passionately defended by the most eminent thinkers of the time. The idea of "paradigm shift", which became a buzz phrase in myriad fields. originated with Kuhn.

[TheBaldyMan]

16. I understand the notion of paradigm shift very well, the present day state of

theoretical physics is at one of those cusps right now. So I can readily sympathise with the concept of defending a paradigm against all comers, damned dark matter!

It's a bit like the late 19th century. Back then we were all agreeing that we understood nearly everything and were a few years away from absolute knowledge then quantum theory and special relativity reared it's ugly head. The rest is history.

You did set me thinking about the different aspects of scientific proof and here are some of my thoughts.

Verifiability & Falsification
I can think of examples that are almost perfect examples of verifiability proofs, e.g. the background radiation from the big bang. The data fit to the predicted levels is very good indeed, most Physicists were a bit disappointed. I feel that they would have preferred an anomalous result that would have meant they'd got their sums wrong and would have to go and dream up a new hypothesis. Instead repeated observations agree very closely with the theory and so the supporting evidence reinforces the theory.

In my opinion this is an area where any hope of falsification of the theory falls down and demands an oblique approach to the problem to further our understanding of the natural processes involved.

Statistical proofs
The types of proof that Kuhn touches on are being added to with time.

In other fields the proof of a theory that is increasing finding support is the concept of a statistical proof. A few years ago (early nineties) the search for quarks had not observed sub-hadron level particles, mainly because of the energies involved were beyond existing technology. An experiment was designed that wouldn't look for the particles directly but could infer the most probable number of them within a hadron. Although in theory there should have been three when the experiment was run for a few days they came up with the most probable number as 4.8 - this as you may have noticed is a lousy estimate.

However as the experiment was run for longer and longer the most probable number fell to 4.2 then below four, after a mad dash for funding to keep the experiment running they managed to get the estimate down to about 3.4 - this began to look far more promising and plans were laid to refine the experiment and perhaps get the estimate down to 3.1 or 3.01

There was speculation that in the future the team might get the estimate error down to several degrees of magnitude, perhaps even 10^-6. The subtle change of emphasis from direct observation to statistical inference remains controversial.

Is there a scientific method or even a process
I'd disagree with Feyerabend to say that science doesn't use a method at all and instead has a scattergun approach to enquiry.
I would say he confuses the scattergun with serendipitous discoveries or meetings with other scientists, perhaps from another field, who can bring insight from another discipline to bear on the problem. Scientists can seize these opportunities and develop the concepts, the destination may be unexpected but the data gathered and analysis made can still be valid.

There is also the question of negative results, this is still a result. Just because you identify an avenue as a dead end doesn't invalidate the science.
One example of this is the infamous cold fusion paper that had dozens of teams worldwide trying to reproduce the original teams results within days of publication. The reason the cold-fusion theory was debunked so quickly, the fact that it was debunked, is in my eyes the strength of the scientific method. The popular press might have sensationalised the story and had a good laugh at the expense of the people involved but it was still valid science.




I hope I haven't bored you into coma with this, I'd be interested to read any feedback.

[Finder]

17. I do agree with some of the points in that piece...

but Kuhn does not seem to be dealing with the scientific method but with the approach of science/scientists.

I will be adding this author to my bookshelf, for sure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. As a former academic, I know that when you're writing a paper, you

are supposed to start with a "literature review," which means that you describe what other reputable scholars have said about your topic. You do this whether you agree with them or not. Later in your paper, you refer back to these sources to either validate or disprove or raise doubts about them, based on the evidence you uncover, whether it's through experimentation or through reference to original documentary sources or texts.

There are pretty well-established conventions about what constitutes a valid objection to someone else's theories. Saying "I hate Professor X's guts" is not a valid argument, although if you really do hate Professor X's guts, you may become incredibly nit-picky about his or her theories, with the expectation that Professor X will return the favor. Similarly, saying, "Professor X's theory just doesn't feel right" is not a valid reason, although your gut feelings in this case may lead you to look for acceptable evidence to reject it.

In the classroom, too, professors often talk about theories that they don't believe in, not because they want to confuse students but because students need to know the history of their field--and of the world. For example, eugenics is thoroughly discredited, but knowledge about it is essential for understanding the intellectual climate that made Nazi Germany's genocidal policies possible.

If you are referring obliquely to creationism or intelligent design versus evolution, there's no contest there. Outside of fundamentalism, most religious people have no problem with evolution or modern astronomy. The purpose of science is to describe and predict, while the purpose of religion is to address the philosophical questions. Adding a religious dimension to a science class is like adding calisthenics to a math class. They're different areas of concern.

[Boojatta]

11. If this post reduces the confusion, then will it be an exceptional post for me?

There are pretty well-established conventions about what constitutes a valid objection to someone else's theories. (...) Similarly, saying, "Professor X's theory just doesn't feel right" is not a valid reason, although your gut feelings in this case may lead you to look for acceptable evidence to reject it.

Yes, disbelief alone is not a legitimate objection. I'm thinking about an objection from someone who knows that a person who is teaching a particular theory doesn't believe in the theory. In other words, the objection is to the behavior of the person who is teaching, not to the material that is taught.

If you are referring obliquely to creationism or intelligent design versus evolution (...)

No, I'm not referring to that. I'm applying a general rule of ethics (that may or may not exist) that forbids people from teaching what they do not believe.

If we start with a rule against deceiving others, then can we arrive at the conclusion that it is wrong to teach what one doesn't oneself believe? <-- Maybe I should have started this thread with this question.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. This dilemma actually occurred for some Chinese academics I met in 1990

They were professors of English, but they were required to teach a Marxism course once a year. (The curriculum for foreign language majors consisted of four hours a day of language and one hour of Marxism.)

The professors knew that even the Chinese government didn't practice Marxism anymore, and the students knew it as well. Yet the requirement stood. Every semester, the faculty and students had to go through the motions of learning an ideology that neither they nor the authorities either believed in or practiced.

It was that or lose their jobs or their places as students at the university.

Your example of physics is perhaps not the best one, because General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both explain and predict different aspects of the natural world--the problem is that they don't fit together. That's why physicists are looking for the magic key that will unite these two equally functional theories.

I'm trying to think of a case in which someone would be required to teach as fact something they didn't believe, other than, say, a scientist teaching at a fundie college, or in required religious instruction classes in European countries that have state churches.

In real life academia, professors present the standard theories/explanations/narratives of Whatever, since that is what the students are expected to know in the real world out there, but if they don't agree, they'll say something like, "However, there are problems with the standard theory for these reasons..."

[TheBaldyMan]

13. as far as physics goes - you have to teach discredited theories (Newton)

to lead into better explanations of how the physical worlds behaves (QM & relativity).

Teaching or learning about relativity & QM would be almost fruitless without a grounding in Newtonian mechanics, it would also be insanely complicated with two mutually incompatible frameworks of a much higher level of mathematical complexity.

You have to learn to walk before you can run. Newtonian mechanics is the run-up before making the conceptual leap to relativity and QM.

It also helps people to develop a physical intuition that can be far easier to translate into personal experience, later these are replaced with the brain hammering concepts of modern physics.