Can You Explain Your Toughest Science or Math to your Grandmother?

[jimerb]

I like to consider myself a science and math buff but I'm certainly no expert in any of the disciplines. Computer science is my bag.

 

One common frustration for me is that in a learning environment I find that teachers or mentors stop talking in English and start talking in 'tech speak.'

 

A saying I hold dear to my heart is from Einstein who said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

 

I have found this to be very true. On the subjects I have mastered the most, I challenge myself to explain them in the most elementary way using only English that any lay person can understand. I find that trying to get the true essence of the topic across using only English, challenges my intellect.

 

I'm wondering if there are limits to this...

 

Can any distinguished scientists or mathematicians here attest to the ability of being plain spoken at an advanced level?

 

For example, can you explain the Dynamics of Large Quantum Systems to your grandmother in a way that she can understand? How deep can you develop her understanding while sitting around the kitchen table?

 

Forget formulas, she doesn't have time or patience for that. I'm afraid you'll have to use analogies instead. She only has a desire to understand.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks for sharing.

[John Cuthber]

No, I can't explain a lot to my Grandmother; she's dead.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well I don't think I can teach my grandmother calculus -- she wouldn't have the interest in the first place, nor the patience. That limits the science I could teach her. I mean I could explain vague ideas, but it wouldn't be science since she wouldn't be able to make good predictions from that.

[the tree]

she wouldn't have the interest in the first place, nor the patience. That limits the science I could teach her.

Very much this. Teaching old dogs new tricks is too much of a challenge in the first place to test whether you actually understand something. Whether you could explain it to a child would be a better test.

 

There are, however thing that I understand and could explain but it'd take a while. Lots of things worth learning really cannot be summarised in less than an hour.

 

(my grandmother could probably explain a little bit of chemistry to me - she worked for some government thing for poison control or something)

[jimerb]

Lots of things worth learning really cannot be summarised in less than an hour.

 

hmmm. Interesting.

 

I don't propose that she would be able to compute heavy formulas or take her new found knowledge and apply it in the scientific community at large but rather maintain a working understanding of the topic so she could keep up at the party after the next set of nobel prizes are handed out in science.

 

Einstein also said, "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."

 

Isn't a good scientist in effect a linguistic translator converting the words of science into the words of English?

[Genecks]

In general, I think to explain a concept to another person would involve over-generalizations or oversimplifications if the person was not familiar with the field.

 

It's easier to teach a person how a cell divides through one mechanisms than it is to go into the other mechanisms involved in cell division. I could talk about microtubules and chromosomes or I could discuss microtubules, chromosomes, cdk-cyclin complex, and more.

 

There are different levels to explaining something, different levels in reduction.

 

I also agree with John. I can't do it, since both are dead. So, I wouldn't take Einstein's saying is a good way to determine if someone is an expert, unless he/she has enough scientific knowledge to call the dead and bring them forth.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Genecks

[Greippi]

Since I want to end up being a lecturer to undergraduates (amongst other things), being able to explain things clearly is an important skill for me.

I am able to explain exactly what I get up to in the lab to both my boyfriend and my mother, who are English majors with no background in science. While they couldn't then go on to give a distinguished lecture on the subject, they understand the basic concepts.

 

But, as has been previously mentioned, the interest of the listener is vitally important!

[ajb]

Science and mathematics quickly becomes complicated and requires a lot of background knowledge. Thus, it can be a real challenge to tell someone outside of the speciality something truthful and non-trivial.

 

I would struggle to explain anything of my work to most people, even other mathematicians and/or theoretical physicists.

[jimerb]

Since I want to end up being a lecturer to undergraduates (amongst other things), being able to explain things clearly is an important skill for me.

I am able to explain exactly what I get up to in the lab to both my boyfriend and my mother, who are English majors with no background in science. While they couldn't then go on to give a distinguished lecture on the subject, they understand the basic concepts.

 

But, as has been previously mentioned, the interest of the listener is vitally important!

 

Greippi, do you consider yourself translating into another language? Or do you feel you are forced to stay within the vocabulary of the science?

 

I'm wondering if a professional linguistic translator who then went on to study science would be more likely to be an excellent teacher....

 

 

 

Consider something like trying to explain the Pythagorean theorem. You can start talking about formulas which is sure to lose the grandmother but if your conversation talks about relationships between distances and angles to a tree in the back yard then I believe with a little planning in your head you could construct English around the theorem to tell grandma how to figure out how tall the tree is.

 

Grandma might not go to the blackboard, but she might be able to guesstimate how tall the tree is in much the same way as you figure out a tip in the restaurant (who cares if she's a little off.)

 

Maybe the right term for it is "good enough education." Not good for graduating from Harvard but fine for everyday living.

Edited May 22, 2010 by jimerb

[Greippi]

Greippi, do you consider yourself translating into another language? Or do you feel you are forced to stay within the vocabulary of the science?

 

I'm wondering if a professional linguistic translator who then went on to study science would be more likely to be an excellent teacher....

 

It's hard not to use the "technical" language because that's what I think puts a lot of people off being willing to understand science. Being confronted with lots of long words that they don't know the meanings of can be off putting and daunting.

So yes, it is a bit like translating to another language.

[Tranquility]

My Grandmother is a devout Christian with Alzheimer's, My field is Astro-Physics...

 

Will give it a go! Wish me luck.

[insane_alien]

the really high up depends on a lot of the simpler stuff, so in order to express some of the more advanced ideas in everdya language and no technical jargon, you'd have to go through everything to get there. there is even a fair chance that it would take several years. using 'jargon' you can get through it much more quickly as all the background is in the definition of that bit of jargon which if you don't understand, then your probably not in line to understand the main idea yet.

[ajb]

My Grandmother is a devout Christian with Alzheimer's, My field is Astro-Physics...

 

You are in an advantage relative to me. Everyone has some idea what a star is, what a planet is, what a galaxy is etc. Also we have all seen the nice pictures produced by Hubble, for example.

 

My latest area of interest is in [math]L_{\infty}[/math]-algebroids, which I would struggle to say much about to anyone. (Interestingly, the literature is very sparse about these structures. Anyway, that is another story.)

 

However, I should be able to motive my interest in these structures to "interested amateurs", even if I say nearly nothing technical about such structures.

 

Will give it a go! Wish me luck.

 

Indeed, good luck.

[insane_alien]

jeezo ajb, i've even got some university level math under my belt and i haven't got a clue what you just said

[the tree]

I'm fairly sure that the L stands for Lie as in Lie-algebras and Lie-groups. I have a vague understanding of what those are. So urm... that's the closest I have to a clue, and I could be wrong.

[insane_alien]

i wonder if there are any real world applications where this could at least potentially be useful.

[the tree]

Do you mean applications for explaining stuff to old people or applications for esoteric algebra-like structures?

[insane_alien]

esoteric algebra-like structures of course.

[ajb]

I'm fairly sure that the L stands for Lie as in Lie-algebras and Lie-groups. I have a vague understanding of what those are. So urm... that's the closest I have to a clue, and I could be wrong.

 

L does come from Lie.

 

I have been thinking a little about "higher Lie theory", particularly the linearised version viz [math]L_{\infty}[/math]-algebras and related things. Think Lie algebras but with n-aray brackets.

 

 

i wonder if there are any real world applications where this could at least potentially be useful.

 

Well, such structures can be found behind quantum field theory via the Batalin--Vilkovisky formalism.

 

Similar, but different structures can be found in M-theory.

 

A lot of people are thinking about "higher category theory" motivated by string theory and possible quantum gravity theories. I am not really sure exactly where the infinity structures sit in all this, I am thinking more geometrically than categorically.

 

So whose granny is interested in this stuff?

Edited June 2, 2010 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

well, now, seeing as i don't even understand the applications i think i can safely say i'm never going to get it without a serious career change and getting a doctorate in mathematics.

[ajb]

well, now, seeing as i don't even understand the applications i think i can safely say i'm never going to get it without a serious career change and getting a doctorate in mathematics.

 

This highlights the difficulty in achieving what the OP suggests

 

...being plain spoken at an advanced level?

 

In a slightly wider context, trying to present reserach to a wider audience can be very tricky. I always wonder about the popularisation of science and how much one can really inform the general public.

 

As much of the money for pure science comes from government viz taxes we should all try to communicate what we are doing to the widest possible sectors of society. In practice, this is very difficult.

[RascalRobot]

I believe you need to know the level of technical knowledge your audience has before you can determine your "limit". For example ...

 

Last 4th of July the family was waiting for the fireworks to start. My nephews girlfriend saw a star moving quickly through the sky and asked "is that a shooting star". The answer was "no, it's probably a satelite". This girl had just graduated high school and asked "what is a satellite anyway"? I clutched my wifes arm in total disbelief, then gave a general answer, which leads to the next question, "why doesn't it just fall down". I had now reached this persons limit of understanding, so the answer is "scientists use math and computers to figure out just where to put the satellite so that it keeps spinning around the earth". That was good enough, no mention of gravity or forces, and wasn't insulting.

 

The sad part is, that answer is just about at my limit of understanding. If she had asked about the math, I would have been at a loss for words.

[Mr Skeptic]

The sad part is, that answer is just about at my limit of understanding. If she had asked about the math, I would have been at a loss for words.

 

"It spins around the earth at a speed and distance such that the centrifugal force equals the gravitational force."

[CharonY]

Also one has to note that the "toughest" science are usually areas which are not fully explored yet. I.e. there are normally no concise simplified models that could be further simplified to laymen. What one could do instead is to put the research into context and explain why it is relevant, though. Or one could stick to broad concepts. Those tend not to be the toughest questions, though.

 

Considering the fact that we (scientists) often need years to tackle (and not necessarily solve) our respective science questions and problems, even with our specialized training, it can be easily deduced that it will not be easy or even possible to explain it to someone without teaching at least the basics first.

 

That being said, I managed to convince my grandmother that evolutionary changes can happen and it does not require apes to become humans (but then again, it is not really one of the toughest questions around....).

Edited June 2, 2010 by CharonY

[AlphaSheeppig]

I tried explaining my work in fluid mechanics (a very little understood section involving the complicated reflection patterns of highly unsteady and non-linear shock waves in supersonic flow) to a few of my friends (a journalist, a fashion designer and a fine arts major) and I think I got pretty far. Given several days, I think I'd have no problem explaining it all to my grandmother (if she was alive), but not to the point that she understood the maths behind it.

 

I think the same goes for most fields in physics... The physical principles can be explained, given some time, but explaining the math behind it all would require your grandmother to go get her PhD herself...