Michael Faraday taught physics at the University of Massachuesetts, and at Dartmouth, long ago. The wikipedia entry gives a very succinct overview of why Mister Faraday is worth noting:
"Michael Faraday, (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was an English chemist and physicist .... who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry. Faraday studied the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a DC [direct current, as from a battery] electric current, and established the basis for the magnetic field concept in physics. [His father, James Faraday, was a blacksmith, and so was employed in a quasi-scientific craft. This may be where Michael's interest in such matters originated].
"He discovered electromagnetic induction .... [and] established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena. His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology, and it was largely due to his efforts that electricity became viable for use in technology."
Alan Hirschfeld's insightful biography (The Electric Life of Michael Faraday, p. 80) recounts the first instance of his success with creating what would be the prototype for electric motors later on. "On September 3, 1821, with his wife Sarah's 14 year-old brother, George Barnard, at his side, Faraday cobbled together a crude apparatus from materials in the lab. First, he secured a bar magnet upright in a cup of mercury, leaving only the top part of the magnet exposed (mercury, a liquid metal conducts electricity; thus the space around the immersed magnet was a metal "sea," able to conduct the battery's current). From an electrical terminal above, Faraday suspended a short length of wire, bouyed by a cork, so that the wire's lower end dipped into the mercury. The dangling wire and mercury now formed an unimpeded path for electrical flow.
... He and George looked on expectantly as power was applied from a battery. The wire started to whirl in a conical path around the magnet, [And Faraday shouted] "There they go! There they go! We have succeeded at last!"
The flexible, current-carrying wire "felt" the force of the upright magnet, nudging it around the conical path ... the magnet circled the upright electrified wire. Faraday's rough-hewn experiment marked the first time that electricity had been harnessed for continuous motion. Here was the forerunner of the electric motor."
Faraday was extremely astute, even for a scientist, in which one might expect above average cognitive acumen. He even studied the use of language in its applications to describing science, as well as its uses for developing technical vocabularies. For instance, he wondered about the usefulness of using technical words which had connotations from an older scientific vocabulary, which he saw as outdated, and therefore (in some ways) unnecessarily misleading.
While Faraday was necessarily unaware of the more basic components of later atomic theory -- electrons and other subatomic particles with names which burden the mind -- since the more modern atomic models (see Niels Bohr and the Bohr model of the atom from the early 1900's) came much later, yet his experimental science projects proved enormously successful.
In the study of the decomposition of solutions in electrical currents (electrolysis), Faraday also deduced two of it fundamental principles. For today's brief post, the details of this are not important. In Biblical language, Faraday's extraordinary success was in large part due to the fact that he proceeded upon the bases of:
1. Repeated and varied experimentation. The man "went nuts" with the toys in the lab.
2. Careful observation, and (sometimes only mental, not necessarily written) notation of the results in each instance
3. Classification of types of experiments, and of their results
4. The careful use of induction (no pun intended) and deduction, or logical inferences from his varied factors, conditions and results
This is called, "Pulling a Solomon." In the ancient world, not everyone had leisure time. Kings were thus among those most interested in both the study of the natural world, and the logical relationships found in their studies. This is something of what we have in the wisdom literature, what the ancients called "natural philosophy." Proverbs 25 says as much: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [not peasants working in the field from dawn to dusk] is to search out a matter."
Each of these elements of study, though not necessarily the use of the same tools, can be identified in the copious studies of King Solomon. In fact, the Proverbs indicate this fairly clearly. One can almost see Solomon studying the ants, yelling at some point or other, "There they go!" when he exposed them to this or that substance.
The making of the Proverbs is indicated in the Proverbs themselves. Chapter 24 is highly instructive in this regard, and shows the observational basis of their inductions and constructions. Proverbs 24:30-34 shows us a proverb in the making:
"I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down. Then I saw, and considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction.
Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man."
Here we should note several points. First, Solomon notes the details of the situation he studies, isolating particular details as the most relevant from the entire scene he takes in. He notes the field, the vineyard, thorns and nettles. These are the striking or unusual features. Second, the verbs "saw," "considered well," "looked upon" and "received instruction." Third, he posits the punchline, or ethical maxim of most value to be learned by noting the cause (sloth) and the effects of it. He isolates the most relevant causal feature and consequences of the scene investigated. This is C.S.I. without the fancy forensics.
This raises some important questions about the roles of observation and theorizing in the sciences, and what the Bible regards as a sufficient warrant for reaching proper conclusions (meaning true conclusions). Now Solomon's study is scientific, but you will note that he is not exactly -- at least not here -- doing science. His goal is ethical in nature, not simply the isolation of cause-effect relationships, but ethical cause-effect relationships. Solomon is doing scientific ethical studies from the light of nature.
We know this because he uses traditional wisdom and rabbinical language, "received instruction," as though from a Rabbi, who would pass down his teachings to his students for verbatim memorization. Solomon was, in a word, one part Rabbi, one part Einstein. But his studies have clear implicates for warranted (and unwarranted) views of the sciences.
For instance, from other such examples of Solomon's stated (and implied) practices, we can deduce that the Bible views proper science -- if one uses its conclusions to form the basis of obliging knowledge (knowledge claims one has the right to require of others) -- necessarily find their root in observation and induction, not merely theorizing on a chalkboard. This is consistent with the Deuteronomic observation requirement of two or three witness to establish any matter. This implies that a scientist working alone will have to show his work again to someone else. The Bible thus requires repeatability of experimental results to confirm a scientific claim.
Note above please that I have said that Faraday was doing -- in essence -- biblical science, and that this in large part forms the reason why his researches proved so fruitful, and in so many different fields. He also contributed standard units of measurement, the "faraday" and the "farad" to name two. The rest I will keep -- if the Lord is willing -- for another post.
The Bible has the answers, but we need a very careful, systematic and detailed approach to its study. If the common features of the world deserve such care (as the Proverbs show us), how much more what is Holy? But, alas, students have other things to do too besides read blogs. There are so many toys and so little time.
Just ask a scientist.
We could do far worse then in this very brief introduction to science than to follow the example of Doctor Faraday in forming the budding student's approach to the sciences. And remember, science motors.
Solomon spent a good deal of time on such matters, and this -- given his extraordinary heavenly wisdom -- sufficiently warrants the scientific enterprise and the time taken to explore God's creation for His glory and the benefit of all. 1 kings 4 (vv. 29-34) says of Solomon:
And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.
And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And [in his proverbs and songs] he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall [all manner of botany]: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes [biology, including avian and marine biology].
And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings [these kings were "searching out a matter" as kings are wont to do] of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom."
In Solomon's day, we can say (as a gross understatement) that the sciences were experiencing a Renaissance (a strong renewal of interest among kings from many nations), and their kings a Reformation. Solomon was teaching experimental and observational (scientific) ethics, by way of highlighting the teachings of natural revelation. So his goal was different than the scientist typically, but not his methods. For kings need most to know of mercy and justice, or charity and righteousness. But science cannot hurt.
Solomon recognized no segregation of theology and the sciences, but saw the former as the basis of the latter. He wasn't buying the modernist package. This means that when Christians study the sciences, we must go one step further than the secularist. We must ask, in light of the teachings of all the Word of God, what can we learn from our studies of how God expects us to be diligent as the ant, courageous as the lion, clever as a serpent, and gentle as a dove (that is, like the Lord Jesus). The bees can (and do) preach, and honey is a mouthful. But only if we listen. Here, we must look on, consider well, and receive instruction.
As a final note: for those beginning the study of the sciences, one of the best ways you can do this -- as I have proclaimed from my pulpit earlier -- is by taking a diachronic, or at least biographical approach. Here, "diachronic" means to show how the sciences developed over time, starting with earlier scientists and young sciences, and moving toward the later scientists and more mature sciences.
Choose a scientist worth studying, and study his achievements in light of his life and worldview. The two must never be separated. Personal influences always stand behind ideas, "discoveries," and inventions. And recall that no theory of any science, should it state or imply some error in the Bible, is at any time to be believed. But you can still use it to accomplish great, or at least, very fun, scientific experiments. Many scientists took this anti-realist approach to the sciences -- just because it works well does not make a theory true -- and they did just as well as any other scientist (Ernst Mach is a classic example of this type of scientist).
Take your study of the sciences only in historical context. This way you can also focus on whatever part of the scientist's life and work appropriate to the ages of your students too. Younger students might only need to know about the kinds of fun things he did (you thus introduce them to this or that field of science and some of the more fun side of the sciences, without all manner of difficult -- did I mention boring -- math or other technical jargon, which can come later).
Avoid getting lost in technical stuff -- until students are more mature. BORRRING. Tell the youngest ones the stories of successful scientists, and all the fun and sometimes kooky inventions they tried. I like the earlier attempts to build airplanes that shake themselves apart a few feet off the ground. Marconi invented the radio. Now THAT is a story worth telling. Alex bell came up with the telegraph, and it played a MAJOR role in the westward expansion of the United States. Every child should know about the telegraph and that funky Morse code they used to tap out (see also Samuel Morse). The history of the sciences is filled with great stories. Storytelling is a form of history everyone loves. This is how the Lord Jesus taught in form. Railroads and trains come alive with a good story.
This may call for field trips to go see the cool stuff they have at the exploratorium and other like exhibits, but only after some of the great stories about how we got the first laser. The word abbreviates "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation,' which is why they call it a "laser." They are too scared to try the longer version. Laser light shows make for great field trips after children have been told the story behind them, and seen a few pictures.
And try all manner of supervised experiments. Radio Shack sells several electronics boards, with bells and whistles galore -- simple experiments anyone can do to learn about everything from solar power cells to the basics of current flow. These are really fun and come with a numbered projects book. All you have to do is connect one of the wires to the right number at one end, and then as directed at the other.
They have great chemistry sets too at most hobby stores. Just don't blow up the kitchen, or you will likely end up a highly successful scientist -- a "lifer."
Here are a few names you might wish to use for studying the history of the sciences. You might wish to delve a little further into Faraday's accomplishments.
Lord Kelvin, James Joule, Niels Bohr, Louis Pasteur (very interesting man), Antoine Lavoisier, Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, James Watt (steam engines are cool), and under "sciences" by their various names (astronomy, geology, botany), the wikipedia listing has a very long list to finish this job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
And one palaeontologist is worth noting because he never makes the textbooks. Here's why. Richard Owen staunchly resisted -- and well refuted -- every major point of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species shortly after its publication. Printing presses could not keep up with demand for Darwin's book, which proved so popular it even scared Darwin. The publishers shelves emptied almost overnight. And Owen and a few scientific friends went to work with exceedingly scholarly critiques, winning the day among their contemporaries -- with all but a few. It was the NEXT generation of students that adopted Darwinism almost wholesale.
But this staunch defender of what was then scientific orthodoxy, the creationist account, utterly overthrew Darwinism within a few years of the presses being overrun by demand for it. only Swiss-American Naturalist, Asa Grey and a few others had reservations about Owen's ruthless scientific critique of Darwinism's evidentiary failure. Owen won the day among scientists against Darwin. I know of no biology textbook which offers this information at any university. It's the history of science guys that tell you this stuff. Owen was as scientific as they come; he was irritated; and he was Scottish. Darwin was toast. Here's a short UCB Owen page: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/owen.html
Now sooner or later you will simply have to have your students make match rockets. Books detailing all sorts of fun experiments like this propulsion experiment you can do with common household objects are really fun too. Did you know you can make batteries from lemons? Solar ovens to cook things from styrofoam and tin foil? At some future time, if the Lord is willing, I shall attempt to hunt some of these catalogs of home-made experiments down online and post them here.
Have fun, but not too much fun.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment