Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

[swansont]

.

I think to focus on ,one , or many analogies as an example of how vague compared to maths , analogies can be . Is a fair comment .

 

This however does not exclude scientists or other disciplined persons , or just anyone making an observation, maybe by dint of circumstance, or by chance , or by Serendipity as a convenient coincidence . Then seeing a model that appears to work in nature one way, and wonder if it could work in another set of circumstances .

 

Such an hypothesis should NOT be ' tossed out ' . But rather listened to, considered, tested for possible patterns and not suffer the fate of chucking the ' baby out with the bath water ' just because it does not have ' calculus ' or ' la place transforms ' in the hypothesis. I am sure Einstein never had this rebuttal when he noticed pollen grains on the surface of water , being buffeted , as his insight to Brownian motion of atoms, giving him the right to hypothesise about Atoms behaviour .

 

Mike

 

I see that, after 276 posts, that you are still arguing a strawman. What you are complaining about doesn't describe the state of affairs. The history of physics has many stories of people inspired by watching something. Leó Szilárd famously came up with the idea of a chain reaction from watching traffic lights. But the important thing is this: he didn't stop there. He continued on and developed a mathematical model from the idea. Something that could make predictions and be tested. The idea, the analogies — they are not enough to call something science.

[StringJunky]

.

...Such an hypothesis should NOT be ' tossed out ' . But rather listened to, considered, tested for possible patterns and not suffer the fate of chucking the ' baby out with the bath water ' just because it does not have ' calculus ' or ' la place transforms ' in the hypothesis. I am sure Einstein never had this rebuttal when he noticed pollen grains on the surface of water , being buffeted , as his insight to Brownian motion of atoms, giving him the right to hypothesise about Atoms behaviour .

 

Mike

Einstein used maths to follow up that observation. A snippet from his paper on the subject of Brownian Motion:

 

 

http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.physik.fu-berlin.de%2F~kleinert%2Ffiles%2Feins_brownian.pdf

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Einstein used maths to follow up that observation. A snippet from his paper on the subject of Brownian Motion:

 

 

Einstein Brownian.png

 

http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.physik.fu-berlin.de%2F~kleinert%2Ffiles%2Feins_brownian.pdf

Yes , and I am impressed as you are of Newtons's calculus, which others have expanded on . This giving maths the degree of precision and the ability to mathematically manipulate number , as well as make incredibly accurate , quantification. I am not denying the rigor of maths or its banishment . I am just trying to champion the ....' root concepts ' .....that are needed to feed the machinery of discovery. I do feel that although discoveries can occasionally , be spawned directly out of maths from time to time , but I do feel ( as the original proposal states ) , that it is the concepts that should lead the field of discovery , by observation and hypothesis, not the maths . As maths is " Blind " whereas we as humans have a lot of different observational senses and a brain , all of which ( I will probably be shot down ! ) are non mathematical in their operation!

 

Mike

Edited March 26, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[studiot]

 

Mike etc

Yes , and I am impressed as you are of Newtons's calculus, which others have expanded on . This giving maths the degree of precision and the ability to mathematically manipulate number , as well as make incredibly accurate , quantification. I am not denying the rigor of maths or its banishment . I am just trying to champion the ....' root concepts ' .....that are needed to feed the machinery of discovery. I do feel that although discoveries can occasionally , be spawned directly out of maths from time to time , but I do feel ( as the original proposal states ) , that it is the concepts that should lead the field of discovery , by observation and hypothesis, not the maths . As maths is " Blind " whereas we as humans have a lot of different observational senses and a brain , all of which ( I will probably be shot down ! ) are non mathematical in their operation!

 

 

 

Concise and fairly balanced. Thank you Mike for keeping the verbosity down to the technical. +1

 

In particular I endorse the question (underlined in the quote) as to the lead player in modern times.

[Strange]

I do feel that although discoveries can occasionally , be spawned directly out of maths from time to time , but I do feel ( as the original proposal states ) , that it is the concepts that should lead the field of discovery , by observation and hypothesis, not the maths .

 

I don't know if anyone has done a survey of how much "new" science has been developed led by theory first or led by observation/concept.

 

My impression is that its about 50:50. But I don't really know.

 

What "should" lead, is largely irrelevant. It is more about what is possible or known at any time.

 

So we about the visible planets before we had a theory to describe their behaviour. But theory predicted the big bang before we had the observations to confirm it. (Note that Lemaitre's "cosmic egg" came from the maths, not the other way round.)

 

Similarly we knew about the photoelectric effect and black body radiation before quantum theory could explain it. But then quantum theory predicted lots of things (e.g. antiparticles) that were later found.

[ajb]

I don't know if anyone has done a survey of how much "new" science has been developed led by theory first or led by observation/concept.

It will depend on the subject and will vary with time.

 

For example particle physics is now theory led as the standard model is in place. Before that particle physics was led by the discovery of many 'unwanted' particles.

[swansont]

Yes , and I am impressed as you are of Newtons's calculus, which others have expanded on . This giving maths the degree of precision and the ability to mathematically manipulate number , as well as make incredibly accurate , quantification. I am not denying the rigor of maths or its banishment . I am just trying to champion the ....' root concepts ' .....that are needed to feed the machinery of discovery. I do feel that although discoveries can occasionally , be spawned directly out of maths from time to time , but I do feel ( as the original proposal states ) , that it is the concepts that should lead the field of discovery , by observation and hypothesis, not the maths . As maths is " Blind " whereas we as humans have a lot of different observational senses and a brain , all of which ( I will probably be shot down ! ) are non mathematical in their operation!

 

Mike

 

So basically you are agreeing that the status quo is completely fine, and yet you are somehow upset by this.

[studiot]

As a matter of interest why is this thread in speculations?

 

So far as I can see it is not a proposal, but a discussion about scientific progress and the scientific method and all the better for now being back on track.

 

So I would think it part of the philosophy of science.

 

 

As to the relationship between theory and practice, IMHO they go hand in hand. There are many examples in history of one getting too far ahead of the other with undesirable consequences.

Plato's theory of shadow's in the cave had too much theory and tool ittle practice.

The observations of the motions of heavenly bodies originally had too many observations and not enough theory.

[swansont]

As a matter of interest why is this thread in speculations?

 

 

Because it's speculation. Something that is at odds with the way science works is being asserted.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Because it's speculation. Something that is at odds with the way science works is being asserted.

.

 

Sorry , but with all due respect , I have to say " No I am not . I am dead Centre " Wikipedia :-

 

Says :-

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.[1]

 

 

This is the Wikipedia definition of the scientific method

 

Link :-,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

This is precisely what the National Curriculum instructed me to teach when teaching Physics . It was called " How Science Works " everything was supposed to fit within this Paradigm .

 

However so as not to sound pedantic , I agree once the above circle has been travelled , the successive times around will start from different starting points. However my point is that maths must not be considered the driver , but rather a spoke in the wheel of " How Science Works " and the wheel clearly points out , what normally " . Leads in front "

 

namely....------ Observation . and. Hypothesis . ....----

 

I am afraid its QED on this one.

 

. quod erat demonstrandum

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Ancient Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι), meaning "which had to be proven".

 

 

Mike

Edited March 27, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

namely....------ Observation . and. Hypothesis . ....----

Maybe depending on exactly what you are talking about, in physics the hypothesis is usually mathematical "I will measure a value of X" and these values are predicted by some theory. Now, this is not always the case, experiments can throw out unexpected phenomena. For example, the fractional quantum Hall effect was a surprise and not predicted by the Landau model.

[swansont]

Counterexamples of your claim have been given, ergo it it wrong, i.e. at odds with the way science has been shown to proceed. It is a straw-man argument. That you continually ignore anyone who presents this contrary information does not mean such information doesn't exist.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Counterexamples of your claim have been given, ergo it it wrong, i.e. at odds with the way science has been shown to proceed. It is a straw-man argument. That you continually ignore anyone who presents this contrary information does not mean such information doesn't exist.

By my not commenting on the examples you indicate , is not meant as a denial of these examples.

Of course there are countless examples of how maths has popped up with an indication that there is something possibly there , if we go looking. The more so with all this examination of particle energy , to get a hunch that there should be a certain energy. particle to be found. Even in the early years of atomic physics , neutrinos and antimatter were both suggested by mathematical scientists. (Dirac , Pauli.)

That is like saying a mathematical series goes 1,2,3,4,5,6, - 8,9. Of course a mathematician is going to scream out loud " I believe there may be a xxxx existing at 7 . Or some other far more complex mathematical pattern indicates something is there to discover.

 

My proposal here in this thread is that should be an exception rather than a rule , because we as humans are primarily ' observational ' creatures and we usually :- see, hear, touch, detect, smell, feel , patterns and think with the most powerful computer in the world - our brain. So I am saying we should keep this method of leading the field , in front , rather than be overcome and swamped by a mathematical initiative to lead the field . ( as I said previously , maths is blind if compared to the human observer. We would miss out on , ' as yet unobserved discoveries. And it's not my idea , it is in fact the standard understanding as to " how science works " . But there is a danger that potential discoverers ' people ' will shrink back , thinking they cannot or are not allowed to trespass on the preserve of mathematicians.

 

This was true , when computer programming took over at the early growth of personal computers . PC's . To beginning , the programmes were impossible to use , unless you were a computer orientated individual, and you knew in which menu to find a way forward , or even which convolution of keys you needed to press to access a menu. Finally , just , with more user friendly screens you can batter your way through things , although still some devices can ' freak ' some people to despair. Such is the 'lot' , when you allow technicians to ' lead in front. It is the old battle of ' function verses form ' .

 

The human body is an ideal example of this conflict .

 

FUNCTION. . . is beneath the skin , looking frighteningly ghastly to most people , blood and tubes all higgle de piggledy .

FORM . . . the beautiful human form as seen with the skin on.

 

Fortunately , we have a situation where ' FORM '. Leads or is seen first. We would be lost without the function , but that is all behind the surface . So it should be with the difference of :-

 

Human observation and Human brain hypothesis , and

 

Mathematical approach where mathematical clues and computer simulation tries to lead exploration .

 

Human observation and brain should lead ( not dominate, but be allowed to lead )

 

Mike

Edited March 28, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

My proposal here in this thread is that should be an exception rather than a rule

 

Why should there be a rule in the first place? Who are you to tell other people how they should go about doing the things in which they have expertise and you do not? Shouldn't the utility of a specific practice be determined by its success, rather than some poorly informed quasi-bureaucracy? We have theorists doing research because they continue to advance the state of the art.

 

 

IOW, when you say that something "should be" different from how it actually is (the system works, after all), you need to examining the quality of the assumptions and facts that go into your argument.

 

And it's not my idea , it is in fact the standard understanding as to " how science works " .

It's not clear to me the level of understanding you have of how science works. "The standard understanding" looks to be a grade-school summary, with no appreciation of nuance. It's not a particularly convincing argument, IMO.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Why should there be a rule in the first place? Who are you to tell other people how they should go about doing the things in which they have expertise and you do not? Shouldn't the utility of a specific practice be determined by its success, rather than some poorly informed quasi-bureaucracy? We have theorists doing research because they continue to advance the state of the art.

 

 

IOW, when you say that something "should be" different from how it actually is (the system works, after all), you need to examining the quality of the assumptions and facts that go into your argument.

 

 

It's not clear to me the level of understanding you have of how science works. "The standard understanding" looks to be a grade-school summary, with no appreciation of nuance. It's not a particularly convincing argument, IMO.

Well here in the U.k. " How Science Works " was rolled out about 5 years ago as the National Curriculum for all teaching of Science in the .U.K.

 

So your comments to me ' who are you to say ' is not me ( after all who am I, although I do have a certain amount of industrial scientific experience ) . However Who am I . Is not what I am saying . It is the U.K. National Curriculum Authority. Who are the 'They'. They as an august body, set the teaching of Science to the U.k. Future educated youngsters tomorrow's scientists, U.K , that is .

 

Here is a warning . If you say the current methodology is creating today's results, today's world.

 

Are you sure it has made a good job ?

 

We have before us a mechanical world , a mathematical world , which is not user friendly, let alone human friendly . It is gobbling up earths resources , like there is no tomorrow . Half the world is starving , the other half is continuing to exploit the globe by technology .

 

I am not so certain as you that we have got it right . I think we aught to put the Human element in front , before we totally decimate our world . Now that is a serious reason for putting ' Human observation and human brain hypothesis in the lead !

 

Mike

Edited March 28, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[sunshaker]

I have not read the whole thread so don't know if this as been posted,

Computer generated math proof is to large for humans to check

 

 

Do we begin accepting proofs that computers create as actual proofs if they are too long or perhaps too difficult for our minds to comprehend? If so, we might just be at a crossroads. Do we trust computers to handle things for us that our beyond our abilities, or constrain our reach by refusing to allow for the creation of things that we cannot ever possibly understand?

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-math-proof-large-humans.html#jCp

Will we soon reach this time when the only ones who understand the math are the computers, what will we do then? give up?

Or do we only then look for new mediums to explore these frontiers of science?

[swansont]

Well here in the U.k. " How Science Works " was rolled out about 5 years ago as the National Curriculum for all teaching of Science in the .U.K.

One might ponder the question: at whom is this curriculum is directed? Students, or experts?

 

Once one has answered that, then one can ponder the issue of whether grade-school definitions might just be simplified a little; i.e. are there any science curricula where expert-level information is imparted to students learning the material.

 

 

So your comments to me ' who are you to say ' is not me ( after all who am I, although I do have a certain amount of industrial scientific experience ) . However Who am I . Is not what I am saying . It is the U.K. National Curriculum Authority. Who are the 'They'. They as an august body, set the teaching of Science to the U.k. Future educated youngsters tomorrow's scientists, U.K , that is .

 

Here is a warning . If you say the current methodology is creating today's results, today's world.

 

Are you sure it has made a good job ?

I know we have seen advances in science, and I haven't seen one iota of evidence from you that there are shortcomings that your idea fixes.

 

We have before us a mechanical world , a mathematical world , which is not user friendly, let alone human friendly . It is gobbling up earths resources , like there is no tomorrow . Half the world is starving , the other half is continuing to exploit the globe by technology .

That sounds like a political problem, not one of improper scientific research approaches. (Also, do you think that genetics research isn't math-driven?)

 

I am not so certain as you that we have got it right . I think we aught to put the Human element in front , before we totally decimate our world . Now that is a serious reason for putting ' Human observation and human brain hypothesis in the lead !

You are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. "before we totally decimate our world" is an emotional appeal. In a science discussion, that and a couple of dollars gets you a cup of coffee. You have provided no compelling factual argument.

[ajb]

Well here in the U.k. " How Science Works " was rolled out about 5 years ago as the National Curriculum for all teaching of Science in the .U.K.

You are right that "How Science Works" is part of the national curriculum in the UK. I know for sure that this is part of A-level physics. The children are introduced to the idea of the scientific method and testing theories.

 

The warning here is that this presentation is aimed at a general appreciation of the idea of 'evidence' and 'testing', it is not meant as a strict guideline for practising scientists. It is certainly not aimed at those working at the forefront of mathematical and theoretical physics.

 

 

 

So your comments to me ' who are you to say ' is not me ( after all who am I, although I do have a certain amount of industrial scientific experience ) . However Who am I . Is not what I am saying . It is the U.K. National Curriculum Authority. Who are the 'They'. They as an august body, set the teaching of Science to the U.k. Future educated youngsters tomorrow's scientists, U.K , that is .

 

The vast majority of these students will not become practising scientists. Therefore the details and philosophy of what is taught at high school, and to some extent undergraduate degrees also, is not aimed at producing the next generation of scientists. One hopes that within the group you teach one or two of them will be inspired to continue, remembering that the majority are not as keen as I was at their stage of studies.

 

I have not read the whole thread so don't know if this as been posted,

Computer generated math proof is to large for humans to check

Will we soon reach this time when the only ones who understand the math are the computers, what will we do then? give up?

Unless we develop computers that really have imagination, then we will always needed humans in mathematics and science. Computers are a great tool, but that are a tool.

Edited March 29, 2015 by ajb

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You are right that "How Science Works" is part of the national curriculum in the UK. I know for sure that this is part of A-level physics. The children are introduced to the idea of the scientific method and testing theories.The warning here is that this presentation is aimed at a general appreciation of the idea of 'evidence' and 'testing', it is not meant as a strict guideline for practising scientists. It is certainly not aimed at those working at the forefront of mathematical and theoretical physics. The vast majority of these students will not become practising scientists. Therefore the details and philosophy of what is taught at high school, and to some extent undergraduate degrees also, is not aimed at producing the next generation of scientists. One hopes that within the group you teach one or two of them will be inspired to continue, remembering that the majority are not as keen as I was at their stage of studies. Unless we develop computers that really have imagination, then we will always needed humans in mathematics and science. Computers are a great tool, but that are a tool.

.

Why are we teaching our potential scientists in England , a methodology that ' is not how it is ' , if that is the case . I went out into industry and invented all manner of things . Not all successful I hasten to add.

 

When I ended up teaching in my latter career . My students , said I inspired them , as I threw buckets of water over my head , dropped 10 Kgm weights to the wooden floor measuring the temperature with a digital thermometer before and after collision and calculate the change of potential energy to heat . Took them out in the playing field and let them swing a 5 Kgm weight around on the end of a rope , and told them to " feel the force " . ( unfortunately , maybe , for many of them are going to believe in centrifugal force , one went off back to China saying he was going to build a device . ) To drop a real lemon and a concrete lemon off the top of a fire escape to see them both land at the same time . ( having first done this in Italy at the tower of Pisa ) much to my wife's disgust.

 

But I took those same students out on walks about the school grounds to lay on their backs and look at clouds , to measure the solar energy inputting a small solar panel to move a motor to turn a stone around , watch the air driven seeds fly by , to watch water rockets do action and reaction as they sped skyward , to send hot air balloons aloft . To think . To ponder . To innovate . In the evening in science clubs they would speculate on the most bizarre devices and try and make them work . Some would build sensible devices.

 

Then most of them came to me before they left school and said mr smith you are a legend , you inspired me to become a researcher and designer in science or engineering , a scientist . They should about by now ,be hitting , the Research pool . I do hope I have not inspired them to no end .

 

Surely we all must wonder at the universe about us , and try desperately to learn some of its secrets !

 

Mike

Edited March 29, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Surely we all must wonder at the universe about us , and try desperately to learn some of its secrets !

 

And what's the point of posting this, unless to argue that this is not happening? Or you're just soapboxing.

 

What's the connection to the premise of the discussion?

[Bignose]

.

Why are we teaching our potential scientists in England , a methodology that ' is not how it is ' , if that is the case .

The same reason that 1st semester physics is full of frictionless surfaces, massless pulleys, and no air resistance. You tailor the message to the audience, and you establish simple concepts first before building up to the full situation.

[Commander]

.

Why are we teaching our potential scientists in England , a methodology that ' is not how it is ' , if that is the case . I went out into industry and invented all manner of things . Not all successful I hasten to add.

 

When I ended up teaching in my latter career . My students , said I inspired them , as I threw buckets of water over my head , dropped 10 Kgm weights to the wooden floor measuring the temperature with a digital thermometer before and after collision and calculate the change of potential energy to heat . Took them out in the playing field and let them swing a 5 Kgm weight around on the end of a rope , and told them to " feel the force " . ( unfortunately , maybe , for many of them are going to believe in centrifugal force , one went off back to China saying he was going to build a device . ) To drop a real lemon and a concrete lemon off the top of a fire escape to see them both land at the same time . ( having first done this in Italy at the tower of Pisa ) much to my wife's disgust.

 

But I took those same students out on walks about the school grounds to lay on their backs and look at clouds , to measure the solar energy inputting a small solar panel to move a motor to turn a stone around , watch the air driven seeds fly by , to watch water rockets do action and reaction as they sped skyward , to send hot air balloons aloft . To think . To ponder . To innovate . In the evening in science clubs they would speculate on the most bizarre devices and try and make them work . Some would build sensible devices.

 

Then most of them came to me before they left school and said mr smith you are a legend , you inspired me to become a researcher and designer in science or engineering , a scientist . They should about by now ,be hitting , the Research pool . I do hope I have not inspired them to no end .

 

Surely we all must wonder at the universe about us , and try desperately to learn some of its secrets !

 

Mike

 

+1 to you Mike

[ajb]

Why are we teaching our potential scientists in England , a methodology that ' is not how it is ' , if that is the case .

(And Wales, I imagine Scotland has a similar 'how it works')

 

The scientific method as a philosophy and its basic elements are taught to children, and like I said the vast majority of these will not become scientists. In my opinion what the A-level physics students are taught is okay. The scientific method is taught as a cycle or a loop, and one that you could joint at any point. Moreover, what is not really stressed is that most scientists will not work their way round the loop in entirety. Science is a collaborative activity with people adding their part to the 'cycle'.

 

So, what drives science is curiosity, and this can come from mathematics or observations. Ideally a bit of both is needed.

 

They should about by now ,be hitting , the Research pool.

You have defined 'research pool'; I will take this to mean postdoc and beyond. Very few school students will make it that far.

 

And again, this is the point. In high school and even undergraduate university one must cater for all students and not the tiny majority that will actually become scientists. This has to be reflected in what is taught and how.

 

I think the main goal of teaching children the scientific method is not to prepare them for scientific research, but rather given them some idea about how scientists think and then apply this to their everyday lives. For example, as adults these children should be able to make some critique of claims made by mediums and similar. They should have some idea on what is required for a company to say 'our product does XYZ'. They should have some basic ideas of statistics and how to interpret data.

 

 

The same reason that 1st semester physics is full of frictionless surfaces, massless pulleys, and no air resistance. You tailor the message to the audience, and you establish simple concepts first before building up to the full situation.

Indeed, and what the school children are taught is not wrong at all. To actually implement the scientific method as a scientist they would need specialist training in what every sector they are researching. The basic philosophy is the same, though it may need a little tailoring. It is not that what they are being taught is untrue, just it is a little simplified and presented in a way they can understand. No different to all aspects of the course. The section on particle physics is not enough for them to research this field, the same would be said of an undergraduate course on particle physics.

 

Anyway what they are taught a A-level physics is enough to have an idea of what a physical theory is (a mathematical model), what it means to test it against nature and how this can then lead to the theory being throw out or modified. For a specific theory they would not be able to tell you much more than what I have said.

Edited March 30, 2015 by ajb

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

(And Wales, I imagine Scotland has a similar 'how it works')The scientific method as a philosophy and its basic elements are taught to children, and like I said the vast majority of these will not become scientists. In my opinion what the A-level physics students are taught is okay. The scientific method is taught as a cycle or a loop, and one that you could joint at any point. Moreover, what is not really stressed is that most scientists will not work their way round the loop in entirety. Science is a collaborative activity with people adding their part to the 'cycle'.So, what drives science is curiosity, and this can come from mathematics or observations. Ideally a bit of both is needed. You have defined 'research pool'; I will take this to mean postdoc and beyond. Very few school students will make it that far.And again, this is the point. In high school and even undergraduate university one must cater for all students and not the tiny majority that will actually become scientists. This has to be reflected in what is taught and how.I think the main goal of teaching children the scientific method is not to prepare them for scientific research, but rather given them some idea about how scientists think and then apply this to their everyday lives. For example, as adults these children should be able to make some critique of claims made by mediums and similar. They should have some idea on what is required for a company to say 'our product does XYZ'. They should have some basic ideas of statistics and how to interpret data.Indeed, and what the school children are taught is not wrong at all. To actually implement the scientific method as a scientist they would need specialist training in what every sector they are researching. The basic philosophy is the same, though it may need a little tailoring. It is not that what they are being taught is untrue, just it is a little simplified and presented in a way they can understand. No different to all aspects of the course. The section on particle physics is not enough for them to research this field, the same would be said of an undergraduate course on particle physics.Anyway what they are taught a A-level physics is enough to have an idea of what a physical theory is (a mathematical model), what it means to test it against nature and how this can then lead to the theory being throw out or modified. For a specific theory they would not be able to tell you much more than what I have said.

Is it possible to make a model of a scientific idea , without maths in it .?

 

Mike

[Strange]

Is it possible to make a model of a scientific idea , without maths in it .?

 

The answer to your question is: yes, they are called analogies and they are crude approximations of limited use to explain the idea to those who don't understand the science or the maths.

 

But, really, it is the wrong question. It should be: Is it possible to make a scientific model of an idea without maths? And the answer to that is: no.