His apprenticeship was drawing to a close. He felt hopeless and depressed. Then suddenly and unexpectedly came a lucky break. The janitor of the royal Institution—home of such illustrious scientists like sir Humphrey davy—was fired for engaging in a brawl. And young Michael Faraday was hired to replace him. This was how Faraday began his life career as one of the greatest scientists in history. At the beginning, he was mostly engaged in helping davy and others.
Analysis of, eliza doolittle's pygmalion ' monologues
To discover what specific tool may help our teachers to fulfill this critical role, let us return to the writ life of Michael Faraday once again. At the age of fourteen, michael Faraday was an apprentice to a small bookbinding business. He could easily have continued with what he had learned as an apprentice and spent the rest of his life as a journeyman bookbinder. But that was not. What then inspired this young bookbinder's apprentice to dream of a career of a modern Galileo or Isaac Newton? From what I could gather, his dream—where it all began—started with two articles on the history of science. As young Faraday was glueing together the pages of a set of the Encyclopedia britannica, something in the printed pages caught his eyes. It was an article entitled, "History of Electricity" written by. Tytler, in turn, took most of his material from Joseph Priestley's book, "The history and Current Status of Electricity."379 Faraday was so excited by what he read that he began to conduct experiments on the mantle-piece of his employer's shop. His scientific equipments were fashioned out of two glass bottles, which he bought from an old rag shop for six pence and one penny respectively. Soon he was defending his own theory of electricity among a gathering of young friends intent on "improving their minds." Unfortunately, as his love for science grew more and more fervent, the prospect of becoming a professional scientist, or even just continuing as an amateur.
All these had undergone profound changes when I came on the scene as I have pointed out repeatedly in the text of this volume. Whether or not the ai hypothesis will remain the one and only unifying theory, as I believe it will, is a judgment that can be made only in the future. Notwithstanding, there is no denial that the ai hypothesis is the first-in-history physico-chemical theory of life at the cell and below-cell level. And this whole volume testifies to how it agrees with the experimental studies designed to test its validity. How a dedicated biology teacher holds the key to a better professional future for basic life science let us begin with what a teacher does not want. No teacher worthy of that title wants knowingly to teach or present a wrong theory as truth—nor teach only (beautifully-illustrated) trivia. However, a great teacher does more than just not doing wrong or meaningless things. He or she can expose the students to the right underlying rules of fair play and sportsmanship in the same way that loving fathers and volunteer coaches teach youthful sand-lot baseball players. And in the process, inspire in a few students an abiding love for the subject taught, and prepare him or her for a career in the service of all mankind that is always interesting and unswervingly relevant.
The question is: How can we heal this fragmentation? My answer is: Begin with a unifying theory. Early on, i pointed out why the membrane theory at one time appeared to be a unifying theory ( Chapter 4 ). Unfortunately, as more and more new facts came to light, they left no doubt that the membrane theory is not headed in the right direction. Then alternative theories based on the concept that cells are solid and made of protoplasm were introduced. Unfortunately, the protoplasm-oriented cell physiologists did not produce a unifying theory. The time was not yet right. Not only were the essential basic physico-chemical sciences themselves still in their early development or not yet in existence ( Chapter 7 powerful new scientific tools like radioactive tracer technology, which have played key roles in critically testing the alternative theories, were still to come. Nor did these investigators enjoy the benefits of public financial support, which was not in place until the end of World War ii in the United States, for example.
Where Are They now?
All too frequently, they forget the vital role of fair play and sportsmanship in science and see an impending major scientific progress as a threat to their personal advantage and prestige and use the entrusted power to suppress.247; 350 Unlike sports, these activities are. (Creating and putting into practice something better than the widely-practiced "peer review" system—so that truly innovative ideas are encouraged rather than suppressed—is a matter of great urgency. Until this reform is successfully carried out, the peer review system will remain a blemish on the wisdom and integrity of a great leading Nation like the United States, which rightfully would not tolerate infringement of freedom in far less important issues.) Fragmentation and its. Rothschuh pointed out that with the increase in practicing physiologists, the number of scientific journals have risen to such an extent that "Physiology has even ceased to be one whole and distinct teaching subject, a fact which virtually spells the end of the discipline. G., renal physiology, digestive physiology, etc.
But cell physiology has fared no better. It too has split into biochemistry, biophysics, pharmacology, cell biology, molecular biology, mathematic biology, etc., etc. Indeed, things have gotten much worse with the universal adoption of the peer review system, which further exacerbates fragmentation. A verified unifying theory to put Humpty-dumpty simple together again "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility" (Immanuel Kant). To begin with, simple and coherent things are easier to understand (and to remember.) Thus the comprehensibility of Nature may be tied to its underlying simplicity and coherence, which are couched in such admonitions as that of Occam's razor, "What can be done with fewer. As such, it hides from view Nature's innate simplicity, coherence and comprehensibility.
One asks, "Is this secret formula so lofty that one cannot expect it from ordinary people?" Not so at all. Indeed, every participant in a competitive sport accepts and lives by it without a second thought. It is true that occasionally one hears of someone in sports who used illegal drugs or even attempted to beat up a referee, but that is a rare exception. Almost all participants of competitive sports know how to win and how to lose. In this obedience to a widely accepted ethical rule of fair play, the very spirit of sports resides. This spirit is not inborn.
It is taught from the day the child learns to play the game— by fathers, amateur coaches, etc., who love the game, understand it and teach its rules of fair play and sportsmanship, which make the game possible. But another factor in favor of fair play and sportsmanship in sports is that everyone can see and fully understand what is going. After all, they are exhibitions. I am sad to say that the same spirit, which is as vital to the health and survival of science as it is to competitive sport, has not done well in the field of cell physiology in the later half of the 20th century. The decay began slowly and almost imperceptibly after the introduction in the 1940's of large-scale government funding of scientific research. To determine who gets support and who is refused, the peer review system was born and universally adopted.348; 349 Public funding of research per se is a great blessing to science and scientists, including myself. Unfortunately, those chosen to serve on peer-review panels are—unlike most referees and umpires in competitive sports—themselves competitors for the money they control.
George bernard Shaw - wikipedia
Yet he revolutionized the field of physics with his iconoclastic concepts of curved electric and magnetic lines of force and his field theory. He was almost entirely rejected by his peers. Some even suggested that "he ought to return to sixth form mathematics before venturing into the deep ocean of Laplacian physics."366p507 But there were also striking exceptions. William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) and especially james Clerk maxwell both recognized the importance of Faraday's revolutionary concepts. Later Maxwell was to introduce his own famous theory of light as electromagnetic waves, which salon marked one of the great forward leaps in physics. Yet through it all, maxwell always insisted that the core of Maxwell's advanced writing field theory were the ideas Faraday expressed in his life's work.54p 509, p 513 Thus Step 2 of another major scientific revolution was once more successfully carried out. Eighty-nine years after Faraday's death, Albert Einstein—possibly the greatest scientist of all time—wrote: "For us, who took in Faraday's ideas so to speak with our mother's milk, it is hard to appreciate their greatness and audacity."365p101 And Faraday did all this "without the help.
(In an earlier writing, i called Step 1 a scientist's scientific revolution, and Step 2 an historian's scientific revolution.107 p 319) Step 2 is as a rule more difficult to accomplish than Step. Thus, the great physiologist-physicist, hermann von Helmholtz expressed a similar view in his 1881 Faraday lecture: ".it is often less difficult for a man of original thought to discover new truth than to discover why other people do not understand and do not follow him."537p. (i) Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) was the Unitarian minister-scientist who, as mentioned earlier, discovered oxygen but believed it to be "dephlogisticated air." When Antoine lavoisier argued that it was really oxygen, Priestley fought him tooth and nail—until he realized at last that lavoisier was right. Then Priestley made a 180-degree turn and praised lavoisier's apology "chemical revolution" with overflowing admiration and enthusiasm: "There have been few, if any, revolutions in science so great, so sudden and so general. Of what is now named the new system of chemistry."346 Rapid and broad acceptance of lavoisier's new theory soon followed. (ii) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) came from a poor family in London. He had no formal education.
past? Before attempting to answer, let us not forget, successful or not, a scientific revolution has never been easy. For their roles in a scientific revolution, Bruno lost his life at the stake, galileo was imprisoned for life and Semmelweis died in an insane asylum. Revolutionaries, who did live to see the success of their work, were found more often at the time of, or after, the Enlightenment movement. Replacing a broadly accepted but wrong guiding theory in science with one closer to truth has been as a rule initiated by one (or a few) individuals). This is what I call Step 1 of a scientific revoluton.107 p 319 However, if science is to survive as a continuing cooperative effort, the new and closer-to-truth revolutionary theory must be accepted by the scientific community as a whole. This conversion of the scientific majority is what science historians call a scientific revolution, but which I believe is Step 2 of that process.
By the time the right physico-chemical ideas lined came along, wrong entries had already been written into textbooks and taught worldwide year after year to generation after generation of young people at their most impressionable age. The crossword puzzle analogy emphasizes that there is only one unique solution for each man-made puzzle as well as for the puzzle of Nature. A fox hunt is a cogent model in another aspect. It underscores the critical need of a correct guiding theory. A guess (theory) must be made early on the general direction the fleeing fox has taken, before the chase can begin. Once that guess is correctly made, the rest of the hunt has a much greater chance to proceed fruitfully. If not, the leader of the hunt must have the courage and wisdom to make changes promptly. Nonetheless, if the discovery of a wrong theory is made late in the game, changing direction is difficult.
George bernard Shaw Essays and Research Papers
Crossword puzzle and fox hunt: two models for scientific research, science resembles the solving of a crossword puzzle. An ordinary crossword puzzle can be done easily by one person. In solving the scientific puzzle. Nature, an inherent difficulty father's lies in its immense size. Inevitably, a division of labor is inaugurated and uncoordinated multiple starts are launched. Thus, with perfectly good intentions, fragmentation, the deadliest disease of science, was set in motion. And, for a science like cell physiology, there is a second pitfall. In solving the cell-physiological puzzle, correct basic physico-chemical concepts rather than words are used to fill the blank spaces. Since these physico-chemical concepts were being discovered at the same time the cell-physiological research was on-going, the early cell physiologists were bound to make wrong entries because the right ones were not yet known.