Jerry Coyne's faulty criticism of Sarewitz statement about Higgs boson comparison with sea of milk of Hindu scripture (in Nature article)
I read the original article that Jerry Coyne criticized for its comparison of Higgs boson with the sea of milk of Hindu scripture. Well, Coyne does not seem to have understood the author properly. Here is the relevant extract from the article by Daniel Sarewitz, http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244:
Most people, including most scientists, can acquire knowledge of the Higgs only through the metaphors and analogies that physicists and science writers use to try to explain phenomena that can only truly be characterized mathematically.
Here’s The New York Times: “The Higgs boson is the only manifestation of an invisible force field, a cosmic molasses that permeates space and imbues elementary particles with mass … Without the Higgs field, as it is known, or something like it, all elementary forms of matter would zoom around at the speed of light, flowing through our hands like moonlight.” Fair enough. But why “a cosmic molasses” and not, say, a “sea of milk”? The latter is the common translation of an episode in Hindu cosmology, represented on a spectacular bas-relief panel at Angkor Wat showing armies of gods and demons churning the “sea of milk” to produce an elixir of immortality.
If you find the idea of a cosmic molasses that imparts mass to invisible elementary particles more convincing than a sea of milk that imparts immortality to the Hindu gods, then surely it’s not because one image is inherently more credible and more ‘scientific’ than the other. Both images sound a bit ridiculous. But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.
--- end extract ---
How on earth did Jerry Coyne write in his article, No Faith in Science; Why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods.", http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html, "When Sarewitz claimed that “belief” in the Higgs boson was an act of faith rather than rationality, and when he compared it to Hindu belief in a sea of milk that sustains their gods, he was simply wrong. There is strong evidence for the Higgs boson, whose existence was confirmed last year by two independent teams using a giant accelerator and rigorous statistical analysis. But there isn’t, and never will be, any evidence for that sea of milk."???
Really beats me! At the least, he should have also mentioned the New York Times article using cosmic molasses metaphor along with Sarewitz using the sea of milk metaphor.
And how can a famous scientist (dedicated to the cause of unearthing and disseminating truths) misinterpret the sentence of Sarewitz which was, "For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.", as "When Sarewitz claimed that “belief” in the Higgs boson was an act of faith rather than rationality ..."???
If one presumes that the misinterpretation by Coyne is deliberate, then we are not talking quest for the truth here. Instead, we are talking political campaigns, disinformation campaigns etc. :-), IMHO.
Perhaps a more charitable view could be that Coyne being a professor of biology, has not studied Particle Physics and the very intricate Mathematics involved in it. I have had a little exposure to it, over three decades ago, and, if I recall correctly, the Mathematics part of it was very tough. So perhaps Coyne too does not really understand the Physics & Mathematics involved in the claim that the Higgs boson was found in the CERN LHC experiment(s), and so was not able to understand Sarewitz simple statement that if you don't know the Math you will not be able to rationally arrive at a conclusion that Higgs boson existence is confirmed, and so acceptance of Higgs boson existence will be an act of faith in declarations of physicists.
Most people, including most scientists, can acquire knowledge of the Higgs only through the metaphors and analogies that physicists and science writers use to try to explain phenomena that can only truly be characterized mathematically.
Here’s The New York Times: “The Higgs boson is the only manifestation of an invisible force field, a cosmic molasses that permeates space and imbues elementary particles with mass … Without the Higgs field, as it is known, or something like it, all elementary forms of matter would zoom around at the speed of light, flowing through our hands like moonlight.” Fair enough. But why “a cosmic molasses” and not, say, a “sea of milk”? The latter is the common translation of an episode in Hindu cosmology, represented on a spectacular bas-relief panel at Angkor Wat showing armies of gods and demons churning the “sea of milk” to produce an elixir of immortality.
If you find the idea of a cosmic molasses that imparts mass to invisible elementary particles more convincing than a sea of milk that imparts immortality to the Hindu gods, then surely it’s not because one image is inherently more credible and more ‘scientific’ than the other. Both images sound a bit ridiculous. But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.
--- end extract ---
How on earth did Jerry Coyne write in his article, No Faith in Science; Why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods.", http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html, "When Sarewitz claimed that “belief” in the Higgs boson was an act of faith rather than rationality, and when he compared it to Hindu belief in a sea of milk that sustains their gods, he was simply wrong. There is strong evidence for the Higgs boson, whose existence was confirmed last year by two independent teams using a giant accelerator and rigorous statistical analysis. But there isn’t, and never will be, any evidence for that sea of milk."???
Really beats me! At the least, he should have also mentioned the New York Times article using cosmic molasses metaphor along with Sarewitz using the sea of milk metaphor.
And how can a famous scientist (dedicated to the cause of unearthing and disseminating truths) misinterpret the sentence of Sarewitz which was, "For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.", as "When Sarewitz claimed that “belief” in the Higgs boson was an act of faith rather than rationality ..."???
If one presumes that the misinterpretation by Coyne is deliberate, then we are not talking quest for the truth here. Instead, we are talking political campaigns, disinformation campaigns etc. :-), IMHO.
Perhaps a more charitable view could be that Coyne being a professor of biology, has not studied Particle Physics and the very intricate Mathematics involved in it. I have had a little exposure to it, over three decades ago, and, if I recall correctly, the Mathematics part of it was very tough. So perhaps Coyne too does not really understand the Physics & Mathematics involved in the claim that the Higgs boson was found in the CERN LHC experiment(s), and so was not able to understand Sarewitz simple statement that if you don't know the Math you will not be able to rationally arrive at a conclusion that Higgs boson existence is confirmed, and so acceptance of Higgs boson existence will be an act of faith in declarations of physicists.
Comments
Post a Comment