{"id":9125,"date":"2022-08-23T11:26:28","date_gmt":"2022-08-23T15:26:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/?page_id=9125"},"modified":"2022-08-30T12:42:30","modified_gmt":"2022-08-30T16:42:30","slug":"lbst2213august29","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/lbst2213fall2022\/lbst2213august29\/","title":{"rendered":"August 29th:\u00a0Collins & Pinch\u2019s\u00a0The Golem\u00a0(Science), Ch. 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Remember, your Weekly Discussion Posts #1 and #2 are due Friday by 11:00pm. I don’t accept any late posts. I assume you’ve set a weekly calendar event to remind you of this assignment.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collins & Pinch. The Golem: Science<\/em>, Ch. 2<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Remember, we’re not so interested in the scientific\u00a0definitions\u00a0surrounding the theory of relativity; instead, we’re concerned with how scientific authority drew (assumed) decisive conclusions from experiments said to prove Einstein’s theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking of the mythical golem, one of the most famous is the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein<\/em>, which we’re reading in November. Her 225th birthday is tomorrow, 8\/30\/2022, so Happy Birthday, Mary Shelley!<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to take away from the readings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We aren\u2019t concerned about surface details in the readings. We\u2019re interested in epistemology<\/strong> and rhetoric<\/strong> (both terms are defined on August 22nd’s webpage)<\/a><\/strong>. For instance, a surface detail from this reading would be that Michelson observed light rays in the late-19th Century. Likewise, another surface reading would be Eddington observed light bending by photographing stars close to the Earth. Both \u201creadings\u201d tell who did what by stating the narrative of events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, reading for epistemology<\/strong> and rhetoric<\/strong> means you consider what implications the processes for conducting the experiments had on a science. For instance, a critical reading (reading to figure out how meaning is constructed) on Michelson would be Michelson\u2019s assumed failed experiment was used by future scientific authorities to confirm Einstein\u2019s theory of Special Relativity. Also, Eddington\u2019s observations proved Einstein\u2019s theory of Special Relativity because scientific authorities (not the entirety of the scientific community) decided as a group to accept certain observations that would confirm Einstein\u2019s theory and reject observations that didn\u2019t confirm the theory. Scientific assumptions privileged Einstein, and those assumptions guided which observations to use (and to reject) for confirming the theory.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The extremely attuned critical thinker would conclude that regardless of which observation or experiment was used to \u201cprove\u201d either the Einsteinian or Newtonian theories, the Universe never changed, only our perception of it.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I mentioned before, this class isn’t about teaching your science and technology; it’s supposed to teach you about<\/em> science and technology, specifically the ways in which people communicate and believe in science. We’ll discuss this more in the future, but I want to highlight it now. You’re immersed in a prevailing culture and accept (and reject) certain ideas because of your experiences and worldviews. There are time when we might want to judge another culture negatively; however, we must understand that there are very few universal assumptions. Relativism<\/strong> is an important cultural studies concept that claims one can\u2019t judge another culture based on one\u2019s own cultural construction (doing so is called cultural imperialism<\/strong>). The acceptance of one’s culture is relative to on’e cultural references–one’s place in the world. However, some might be more comfortable with cultural pluralism<\/strong>, which states that a dominant (hegemonic) culture recognizes the value and richness of diverse subcultures within the society. Scientific schools of thought are similar because one field’s answer to a question is relative to its epistemology. This might be confusing, but, as you read, consider that the scientists and engineers mentioned are members of particular culture–social and professional. You’re trying to determine why someone might conclude a certain way. After all, aren’t facts just facts–always true?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Relativism” can sometimes mean “anything goes,” but that’s for a longer ethical discussion beyond the scope of this course. When you approach the readings, consider contexts. Learning the “science” established isn’t as important as understanding what contexts led to particular discoveries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Break up Ch. 2 into Two Parts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Part 1: Michelson-Morley and Miller Experiments<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Take away 3 things<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Michelson-Morley\u2019s experiment may prove Einstein\u2019s Theory of Relativity, but it was after the fact\u2014way after the fact\u2014that that was concluded.<\/li>
  2. Miller was a preeminent scientist during his time. Einstein was also famous but didn\u2019t have the cultural status he has today. History has been good to Einstein\u2026Miller is nearly lost to history.<\/li>
  3. Miller\u2019s interferometer results were an anomaly (in the sense they were a nuisance) that needed to be explained away. Relativity hadn\u2019t been decisively proven, but the scientific community started believing Einstein\u2019s theory and moved away from believing in ether conducting light.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Part 2: Eddington\u2019s \u201cProof\u201d of Relativity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Take away 3 things<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Eddington confirmed Einstein\u2019s theory by choosing to use the results that fit Einstein\u2019s theory. This is an inappropriate way to confirm results.<\/li>
    2. It was extremely difficult for Eddington to have properly controlled for conditions under which to photograph the stars he used to gather data.<\/li>
    3. No decisive results can be said to confirm light displacement, but important scientific organizations believed Eddington\u2019s observations as correct\u2014garnering the necessary support to establish scientific knowledge.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      A note on observations from the Sobral and Principe expeditions and the photograph plates. We won’t go into the statistical details–standard deviations and confidence intervals–leave that to your stats class. Just remember that the Sobral 4-inch plates appeared to confirm Einstein’s theory that light would be displaced by 1.7 sec. of arc. The Astrographic plates from Sobral appeared to confirm the Newtonian prediction of 0.84 sec. of arc. Eddington (and his buddies) used the Principe plates–“the worst of all” (p. 48)–“as supporting evidence while ignoring the 18 plates taken by the Sobral astrographic” (p. 50).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In other words, although relativity is scientific law, these expeditions didn’t prove it decisively. In fact, Eddington and the Astronomer Royal selectively chose which results to use to confirm Einsteinian physics.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Pseudo Homework on Ch. 2–Reversing Einstein and Newton<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Review the table on p. 49 of Collins & Pinch, and draw a conclusion based on reversing Einstein’s and Newton’s displacement calculations. Imagine if these were their estimations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n