The funny behavior of the "oomph"

From a very enjoyable Richard Feyman lecture, "The Meaning of It All":

[S]cience can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. . . . If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong. The exceptions to any rule are most interesting in themselves, for they show us that the old rule is wrong. [The scientist] does not try to avoid showing that the rules are wrong; there is progress and excitement in the exact opposite. He tries to prove himself wrong as quickly as possible. . . . There are ways to try it and see. Questions like, “Should I do this?” and “What is the value of this?” are not of the same kind.

. . . [T]here is a famous joke about a man who complains to a friend of a mysterious phenomenon. The white horses on his farm eat more than the black horses. He worries about this and cannot understand it, until his friend suggests that maybe he has more white horses than black ones. It sounds ridiculous, but think how many times similar mistakes are made in judgments of various kinds. . . . Another very important technical point is that the more specific a rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test. If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun because all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement, a kind of motility, let us call it an “oomph,” this theory could explain a number of other phenomena as well. So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is nowhere near as good as a proposition that the planets move around the sun under the influence of a central force which varies exactly inversely as the square of the distance from the center. The second theory is better because it is so specific; it is so obviously unlikely to be the result of chance. It is so definite that the barest error in the movement can show that it is wrong; but the planets could wobble all over the place, and, according to the first theory, you could say, “Well, that is the funny behavior of the ‘oomph.’”

. . . We have a way of checking whether an idea is correct or not that has nothing to do with where it came from. We simply test it against observation. . . . We have lost the need to go to an authority to find out whether an idea is true or not. We can read an authority and let him suggest something; we can try it out and find out if it is true or not. . . . In that sense it makes no difference where the ideas come from. Their real origin is unknown; we call it the imagination of the human brain, the creative imagination—it is known; it is just one of those “oomphs.” . . . Incidentally, the fact that there are rules at all to be checked is a kind of miracle; that it is possible to find a rule, like the inverse square law of gravitation, is some sort of miracle. It is not understood at all, but it leads to the possibility of prediction—that means it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done.

The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not a result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. It just turns out that you can state mathematical laws, in physics at least, which work to make powerful predictions. Why nature is mathematical is, again, a mystery.

. . . The laws are guessed laws, extrapolations, not something that the observations insist upon. They are just good guesses that have gone through the sieve so far. And it turns out later that the sieve now has smaller holes than the sieves that were used before, and this time the law is caught. . . . [Scientific k]nowledge is of no real value if all you can tell me is what happened yesterday. It is necessary to tell what will happen tomorrow if you do something—not only necessary, but fun. Only you must be willing to stick your neck out. . . . It is better to say something and not be sure than not to say anything at all.

1 comment:

Grim said...

I imagine that you know that the 'someone' who proposed that idea was Aristotle. It was a good scientific idea: it held up to observation for centuries.

"It seemed pretty good for a long time, though: you can see that the stars move in circles around the earth by direct observation of them. Just watch, they do it every night. Thus earth must be at the center of the universe. Why? Well, it seems to be its natural place: pick up a piece of the earth, like a rock, and drop it. It moves toward the center of the universe, i.e., down. Water falls from the sky and forms lakes on top of the earth, and if you drop your rock into the water it goes to the bottom. Thus the element of earth has a natural place at the center of the universe; water above that; air above that; and if you light a fire, it goes up towards the stars. Thus, we can see how the universe is ordered by direct observation."

The alternative he mentions, Newton's, didn't turn out to work either. We still don't really understand what gravity is; Newton himself said he would make no hypothesis about it.