The Way We Present Discoveries Can Fuel Science Denial
“Basic Principle of Physics is Wrong, Oxford Scientists Say.” A recent article of that title appeared in Newsweek. Which principle, I wondered as I read it. Investigators found a negatively charged object moving toward a negatively charged surface. Coulomb’s Law says it should be repelled. The original publication revealed the circumstances in which the discrepancy occurred.
The object in question was a large DNA molecule and the surface a type of silica. Changing the solvent from water to alcohol created the condition for the contrary behavior Madhavi Krishnan’s group observed. It is an interesting instance in which a fundamental law appears to have failed. But does that mean the law is wrong?
The idea that discovering an exception to a scientific law is equivalent to a revocation of that law goes back a long way. David Hume (1711-1776) concluded that there is no assurance the future will be a continuation of the past and that what we have observed in some instances (called uniformities or regularities) are not assured to occur in others. Karl Popper, (1902-1994) agreed, calling them “falsifications.” This concept has been a mainstay of scientific uncertainty and an arrow in the quiver of science skeptics and deniers ever since.
One could say, then, that the author of the Newsweek piece just followed a philosophical position that philosophers still embrace. An example of such a claim is that Einstein’s relativity disproved Newtonian mechanics. But we continue to use Newton’s laws of motion and force routinely. Similarly, the attractive force between oppositely charged objects still exists in all the situations where it has previously been observed. Countless devices from transistors to batteries use this law. Is it helpful to claim disproof of a law that is still successfully applied?
What Einstein and Krishnan discovered are conditions in which their respective laws don’t work. For Krishnan, it was Coulomb’s Law in a particular situation and for Einstein, it was Newton’s laws of force, mass, and motion for objects at extremely high velocities or in extraordinarily strong gravitational fields.
Krishnan and Einstein’s discoveries are therefore of the same type; both found an exception to an accepted law. Einstein’s theories of relativity produced new laws and we have developed explanations and models for them as they have been empirically confirmed. Krishnan’s group recognized and explained the phenomenon that caused their observed exception to Coulomb’s Law.
When writing about discoveries, identifying which type it is can aid in describing its impact more accurately. I have conceived a list of five types which require a change in laws or explanations.
- A new law. When there is a need to explain and/or find models for newly observed phenomena, a new law may be in order. For example, the new laws of relativity or of quantum mechanics.
- A new exception to an existing law. When a discovery unearths a boundary on an existing law, but does so under conditions that have not previously been tested, the existing law remains trustworthy under previously tested conditions. The phenomenon interfering with the law’s applicability may have its own laws and explanations.
- A new or revised explanation of a law. There can be many plausible explanations for any observed phenomenon. Sometimes, as with the introduction of the heliocentric model of the solar system, observations can be explained or interpreted in a new way.
- An observation inconsistent with an existing law. If an observation is made under conditions in which the law has not been tested, it is the discovery of an exception (see #2 above). If it is within the law’s previously assumed applicability, it calls the existing law to question and prompts a revision. Then we will need a different explanation for the revised law.
- An observation at odds with an accepted explanation. Similar to when the geocentric model of the solar system proved inconsistent with Galileo’s observation of the phases of Venus, a new explanation consistent with the new observation will need to be sought.
While the title of the Newsweek article was egregious, its unfortunate suggestion of a law or theory’s refutation is often found in science reporting. Recognizing the type of scientific discovery could help in framing its significance, impact and what has actually changed relative to what we knew before. An exception to a law does not change the fact that, as Carlo Rovelli puts it, “they are extremely reliable in the domain of their application,” nor does modifying the law’s explanation. Remembering this, we can reinforce trust in what we know while describing and admiring the advancements our researchers produce.
