I think Joseph raises a very important core issue in science education here.

As in the case of Maya's example, analogies which are not literally true can be helpful in making someone feel more connected to a concept from science - helping you imagine what it means to have time pass at different rates, or to be in an expanding universe, etc.

But when these kinds of analogies are used as evidence for a theory, they are often completely misleading. One example that springs to mind here is the misappropriation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in support of all kinds of wacky theories, which really have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Relativity, in the form "everything is relative," is another one that is widely used to support unrelated claims.

As a start to answering Joseph's question, it seems we need to give some clear idea of the realm of applicability of the analogies or models. If you've seen concrete, specific examples of what the uncertainty principle means, you're less likely to apply it vaguely and sweepingly.
Todd
--
*********************************
* Todd Duncan *
* Science Integration Institute *
* duncan@scienceintegration.org *
* (503) 848-0280 *
* www.scienceintegration.org *
* 1971 SE 73rd Ave. *
* Hillsboro, OR 97123 *
*********************************

> From: "Joseph Biello" <biello@mhd10.uchicago.edu>
> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:45:56 -0500
> To: science@lists.pdx.edu
> Subject: Quote of the week/relativity metaphors
>
>
>
> I must take issue with your metaphor of relativity. This is where I
> think physics education fails. We as physicists try to describe the "really
> tough stuff" with one or two metaphors. Unfortunately, it tends to be the
> case
> that we use the same metaphors over and over again because these are the only
> ones that work. Most others tend to miss the point. Moreover, acknowledging
> that these are metaphors emphasizes their shortcomings, one cannot necessarily
> extrapolate the metaphor to gain more insight into the problem at hand.
>
> The classic example of this is the "expanding universe as surface of a
> ballon". The inevitable question is "what does the inside of the ballon
> corresond to in the real universe". The answer to that is NOTHING. That's
> where the metaphor fails.
>
> In this sense, I think the relation of thought to special relativity
> (as in your metaphor) is not correct. First of all, the aspects of
> consciousness that you describe are far more complicated than relativity.
> Moreover, as you acknowledge, the metaphor fails when confronting the
> symmetric nature of the observer/observed in special relativity.
>
> How do we, as educators of physics and otherwise, feel about the
> extensions (or mis-extensions) of our metaphors and toy models? What can we
> do
> to keep them from being misinterpreted?
>
> Cheers,
> Joseph
>
> On May 3, 10:36am, Maya Lessov wrote:
>> Subject: Re: quote of the week
>> Hi, Todd. I understood why you chose the quote. I think the way to make
>> people comfortable with disturbing concepts is to related them directly to
>> their experience, which does reflect these concepts whether they know it
>> or not. I think all people experience the changing flow of time in
>> relation to change, for instance whether or not they board a
>> light-speed-traveling spaceship. Relativity is demonstrated on earth in
>> the speed process of our thoughts. If you think many thoughts and "go"
>> many places in fime minutes, just as the clock has, you have lived more
>> closely five minutes than if you've thought "I have to get to work. I
>> have to get to work." for five minutes. That is why days filled with a
>> couple of events repeaded over and over in one's head go by more quickly
>> than days filled, like a child's, with many different thoughts a minute.
>> When it feels as if you've lived less, that's because you have. You've
>> experienced less change, traveled through less space, because your
>> spaceship, your mind, is moving more slowly.
>>
>> I understand that relativity says this time-slowing dynamic is really
>> reversable and it doesn't matter, or is impossible to tell which object is
>> moving more quickly than the other; each measures time as having slowed on
>> the opposite craft. But, still, without including this detail, the above
>> description is one way in which I relate my experience to concepts in
>> science and a way in which others could, if such examples were presented
>> them.
>>
>> maya
>>
> --
> Joseph A. Biello
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
> University of Chicago
> 484 Enrico Fermi Institute
> 5640 S. Ellis Ave.
> Chicago, IL 60637
> (773) 834 1059