The Science Gap by Milton A. Rothman

In summary, the conversation discusses the book "The Science Gap" by Thomas Rothman. Rothman's book focuses on myths about the nature of science and how science-fiction has influenced his love for science. He discusses the distinction between metaphysical idealism and metaphysical realism and explains how the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that no new forces will be discovered in the future. The conversation also mentions Rothman's predictions for the future based on fundamental symmetries of nature. Overall, the book is highly informative and well-written, and the conversation recommends it for anyone studying science.
  • #1
jma2001
Gold Member
91
0
I stumbled across this book while browsing the shelves at my local library. The book is , which I read years ago and which greatly influenced my thinking (it was Sagan who persuaded me to quit watching programs about crop circles and the Loch Ness monster that I was so fond of as a child).

However, Rothman's book is different in that in focuses not on specific pseudoscientific theories, but rather on myths about the nature of science itself. These myths are sayings often used by science-fiction writers to justify fantastic predictions about the future, such as "Nothing is impossible", "Any theories we believe today are likely to be overturned in the future", and "Advanced civilizations of the future will have the use of forces unknown to us at present." http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org/PR3/h_warner.htm", Rothman talked about how his love of science-fiction inspired him: "I was already determined to do something about bringing the wonders of science fiction into reality ... My eyes were set on a higher purpose: becoming a scientist." So he was not hostile toward science-fiction, just tempered by the realities of a career in scientific research.

He begins the book by discussing the distinction between metaphysical idealism and metaphysical realism, and pointing out that modern science is firmly grounded in realism, specifically, the position of ontological reductionism. That is, the assumption that everything is made of fundamental particles that obey the laws of nature, and that there is nothing else. Having laid this foundation, he goes on to explain how the Standard Model of particle physics allows us to make the negative prediction that no new forces strong enough to have macroscopic effects will be discovered in the future. This stems from the fact that forces are understood to be mutual interactions between two particles, and that new forces would require the creation of new particles which do not exist in our present universe.

Furthermore, out of the four known forces -- gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- only electromagnetism is within human ability to control, owing to the fact that there are two kinds of electrical charges. We are unable to manipulate gravitational fields because there is only one kind of mass. Nor is there anything we can do to manipulate the nuclear forces. All of the great technological developments of the past century are the result of our knowledge of electromagnetic fields. The sobering conclusion to all this is that there may be an ultimate limit to how far technology can advance, based on how far we can exploit the electromagnetic interaction. The other conclusion is that James Clerk Maxwell was one of the most influential people in human history. Carl Sagan echoed this thought in the closing chapters of Demon-Haunted World when he wrote that Maxwell had "done more to shape our civilization than any ten recent presidents and prime ministers."

Rothman concludes his book by making a series of negative predictions about the future. The predictions are based on the fundamental symmetries of nature, and the principle (from ontological reductionism) that these symmetries apply to all particles, and to all objects built up out of particles, everywhere in the universe.

  • Nobody is ever going to build a perpetual motion machine (or equivalent device). (Conservation of energy)
  • Nobody is ever going to hang levitated between floor and ceiling without material support or other physical force such as magnetic fields. (Conservation of momentum)
  • Nobody is going to travel to the distant stars at speeds faster than that of light. (Principle of relativity; Poincare symmetry)
  • Nobody is going to send messages of any kind at speeds faster than that of light. (Poincare symmetry)
  • Nobody is going to send any kind of message that does not get weaker as it travels away from the source. (Heisenberg uncertainty and conservation of energy)
  • Nobody is going to send any message through space without the transmission of energy by a physical carrier (particle or photon). (Conservation of energy)
  • Nobody is going to send messages directly from one mind to another. (At least not without an amplifier. Electromagnetic fields produced by the brain are too small to carry signals over any appreciable distance, and no other signal carrier is known.)
  • Nobody is going to receive messages directly into his/her mind without the agency of a physical carrier. (This includes perception at a distance as well as perception of future events.)

For me, the best quote in the book is from the chapter dealing with the myth that "Scientists don't have any imagination":

Any scientist who refuses to waste time poring over the blueprints for a proposed perpetual motion machine is acccused of having a closed mind. Any scientist who ignores claims for ESP or UFOs or faster-than-light travel is accused of a deficiency of imagination. I suggest that the opposite is true. It takes very little imagination to believe naively that anything is possible. Any ten-year-old child can believe this. It takes a great deal of knowledge to know what things are possible and what things are impossible. A retrospective look at the lives of the most productive scientists indicates that each one had an interesting and hard-to-explain ability: a knack of choosing lines of research that led to important results. These scientists avoided new ideas that were so premature or so unfocused that nothing could be done with them ... What the successful scientists did was to use their imaginations to decide on research topics that were on the cutting edge: problems that could be solved with the tools at hand or with tools that they could invent, and which were broad enough to represent important advances in knowledge.​

All in all, The Science Gap is a highly informative, well-written and powerfully argued book. I am surprised that it is not more widely known. Anyone studying science should be familiar with the facts and ideas presented here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Thank you very much for bringing this book to my attention. I wish all the quacks could read what you have reviewed here.

I will buy this book, read it, and most likely add it to the list of books a science major should read. You have just made my day!

Zz.
 
  • #3
You reminded me that I haven't read enough Sagan - I just ordered a copy of "The Demon Haunted World". This book may be next...
 
  • #4
Why should one be so pessimistic?
 
  • #5
sony said:
Why should one be so pessimistic?
What is so pessimistic about it?
 
  • #6
Rothman is excellent. Another of his along similar lines is "A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism: Applying Laws of Physics to Faster-Than-Light Travel, Psychic Phenomena, Telepathy, Time Travel, Ufo'S, and Other Psuedoscientic claims".

I had the pleasure of meeting him at a conference a few years back; I made him smile when I told him that his book "The Laws of Physics", which I read as a kid, was an important factor in my becoming a physicist.

I am delighted that you reviewed his book, jma2001, so that others may enjoy and learn.
 
  • #7
Doc Al said:
Rothman is excellent. Another of his along similar lines is "A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism: Applying Laws of Physics to Faster-Than-Light Travel, Psychic Phenomena, Telepathy, Time Travel, Ufo'S, and Other Psuedoscientic claims".

I had the pleasure of meeting him at a conference a few years back; I made him smile when I told him that his book "The Laws of Physics", which I read as a kid, was an important factor in my becoming a physicist.

I am delighted that you reviewed his book, jma2001, so that others may enjoy and learn.

Y'know, I pride myself in knowing about writers of books like this, and I must have been completely dead to the world on Rothman. It appears that I've missed considerable body of work by him. So that's the bad part. The good part is that now, I have all of these to look forward to and discover what seems to be excellent books to read.

Excellent! And Thanks!

Zz.
 
  • #8
ZapperZ said:
Y'know, I pride myself in knowing about writers of books like this, and I must have been completely dead to the world on Rothman. It appears that I've missed considerable body of work by him. So that's the bad part. The good part is that now, I have all of these to look forward to and discover what seems to be excellent books to read.
I had never heard of Milton Rothman or his books either until I spotted The Science Gap by chance in the library stacks while looking for something else. A few minutes flipping through convinced me to check it out and read it. Afterward, I did a little research and learned that Rothman was associated with CSICOP for a number of years, and wrote for the Skeptical Inquirer. You can find some of his articles by searching on the csicop.org web site. Also, there is more information on his books, along with links to some of his other writings, http://www.phact.org/e/z/miltbook.htm . Unfortunately for anyone hoping to meet him, I also learned that he recently passed away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
jma2001 said:
I had never heard of Milton Rothman or his books either until I spotted The Science Gap by chance in the library stacks while looking for something else. A few minutes flipping through convinced me to check it out and read it. Afterward, I did a little research and learned that Rothman was associated with CSICOP for a number of years, and wrote for the Skeptical Inquirer. You can find some of his articles by searching on the csicop.org web site. Also, there is more information on his books, along with links to some of his other writings, http://www.phact.org/e/z/miltbook.htm . Unfortunately for anyone hoping to meet him, I also learned that he recently passed away.

Thanks for that info. For some odd reason, his name now is beginning to ring a bell, and after you described his background and his connections, it's beginning to ring an even lounder bell. Why I haven't read any of his stuff (or remember reading his stuff) till now, I haven't a clue.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is "The Science Gap" by Milton A. Rothman?

"The Science Gap" is a book written by Milton A. Rothman that discusses the growing divide between scientific advances and public understanding of science.

2. Why is there a science gap?

The science gap exists because the general public often lacks the necessary education and understanding to comprehend complex scientific concepts and advancements.

3. How does the science gap impact society?

The science gap can lead to a lack of support for scientific research and policies, as well as misinformation and mistrust of scientific information.

4. What can be done to bridge the science gap?

There are various solutions proposed in "The Science Gap" including improving science education, promoting critical thinking skills, and increasing communication and collaboration between scientists and the public.

5. Is "The Science Gap" still relevant today?

Yes, the science gap is still a relevant and ongoing issue in society. With the rapid advancements in technology and science, it is important to address and bridge this gap to ensure informed and educated decision-making.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
899
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
937
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
794
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
1K
Back
Top