If you’re a friend of a Brit, then you’ll undoubtedly know that we’re a dry people, and you may sometimes find yourself doing a double take and wondering whether we’re joking or serious. But after reading yesterday’s Guardian, I’m wondering whether I’ve spent enough time out of the country to lose my own edge. Perhaps I can on longer distinguish finely-crafted satire from mind-numbing stupidity.
This crisis of self-confidence was brought on by reading Michele Hanson’s article, as part of Cif charades “:A special Christmas series in which Cif regulars write about a counterintuitive topic suggested by our readers” I’ve looked at others in this series, but unfortunately they haven’t provided me with the appropriate humor/bullshit compass necessary to divine the meaning of Hanson’s column. I’ve even checked myself against coumns that I know to be humorous, such as David Mitchell’s recent fun rant, but I can’t find a problem.
So maybe it’s me. Maybe I’ve lost the ability to tease out the dark humor in
Quantum physics is a bit of a black hole to me. You jump in and where do you get? Nowhere.
or
I wonder whether there weren’t better things physicists could have been doing over the last century. Just look where their work has got them. Niels Bohr, whose research led to quantum mechanics theories, went off to work on the Manhattan Project, and we all know where that got us. Thank you Oppenheimer, Bohr et al for the atom bomb.
For a moment, I thought I recognized something familiarly jolly in Hanson’s closing remarks
I asked another friend out with her dog. Her knowledge of plain, never mind quantum, physics was fairly basic. “Apples fall on your head,” she said. “Heat rises except in my oven, and E = mc².”
I can manage that, except for the last equation. Let’s not go there.
until I realized they just reminded me of a lazy undergraduate who claims they can’t do addition because they’re “not a math person”.
So I’m stumped. Surely The Guardian wouldn’t green-light a thoughtless and meaningless column by a patently ignorant and anti-intellectual author, would they? So how come I’m not finding it funny?
December 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am
In fairness, her brief was “a counterintuitive topic suggested by readers”, and I don’t think anyone would dispute that QM is counterintuitive, especially to laymen.
All the same, beneath its thin veneer of jolly hockeysticks humour and down to earth disdain for abstract science, the article has an unappealing “sour grapes” air about it. The underlying message seems to be “I don’t understand this, so it must be a waste of time”.
Most readers will love the article, as it will confirm their prejudices and show that their ignorance is shared. But I wonder if they’d be so keen on a similar article one could easily write that rubbished modern art or “modern classical” music, as those are subjects the average Guardian reader values far more and would be ashamed to admit being anything less than an expert!
December 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I suspect that it is supposed to be lighthearted and funny, but the whole thing is just a glamorization of ludditary. Bringing the atom bomb into it is a particularly low blow. I don’t think they would have published an article by a scientist explaining that literature must all be a load of rubbish just because they don’t understand it and I don’t think it would be seen as a fair criticism to say that Wagner could have made better use of his time by writing music that didn’t inspire Hitler. Saying such things would invite ridicule rather than amusement. Unfortunately, it is still seen as “cool” to be an inverse snob about science, but not about artistic things.
On the other hand, I do think that we scientists have done a rather poor job of explaining to the public exactly what we do understand about quantum physics, so some of the blame does lie with us.
Nevertheless, I think times are changing. The geek shall inherit the earth and attitudes like Michele Hanson’s will soon be laughed at rather than with.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Speaking as a Brit living in America, it definitely comes across as a “what are we paying these crazy physicists for?” type of piece. These are supposed to point-out-what-a-crazy-world-we-live-in with a friend in the pub: “Tch, quantum, eh? What will those crazy eggheads think of next? In my day, Newton was perfectly good for me, we integrated both ways uphill…”
I’d also agree with John that it does come across a bit strong on the “sour grapes” too, though.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Matt, I can only hope you’re right. However, the numbers seem to be against the geeks. Overpopulation isn’t being caused by intelligent people who see the inherent value in family planning.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Well, she’s not a physicist, so she might be moronic. From what I see, I’d say she’s more mischievous, though. That being said, it doesn’t sound like she’s looked into things enough to say anything terribly credible.
I think she might be confusing Quantum Mechanics with more esoteric, and in vogue, mathematically-based rigmarole.
In the public mind, I think things like string theory blend with parallel universes, blends with uncertainty, blends with black holes, etc.
The physics community does a TERRIBLE job at saying what is still unproven and what MIGHT be, as opposed to what we truly know. I attribute this to physicists wanting their field, or their ideas, to be listened to better, and believed, for any number of good and bad reasons.
When the physics community speaks through sensational “lets sell advertising” media outlets, this problem becomes exacerbated, because they’re interested in what’s cool and will draw people, so they can sell stuff.
I think she also makes a very good point when she says that so much of physics is devoted to maths, that are disconnected from reality — connected only hopefully so. And the maths carry on, even with that disconnection — even though physicists might be able to work on doing wonderful things for us instead, that are connected to reality.
Of course, physicists are trying to work out reality, and all sorts of wonderful and useful fallout happens from that. But they also spend a good deal of time working on things that may be, when tied to reality, foundationally wrong. Probably because so much is already invested in that line of thinking.
I think she is saying that physicists are maybe not choosing what they should be focusing on best. We have a lot of problems that they could devote their skills and brain power toward. Something like war and big bombs can make that happen. Can they do it on their own? Or do they just wander off in esoterics?
That’s what I got out of her piece, at least. And no, I don’t think that’s a moronic thing to consider. But yes, it’s pretty clear that she is very distant from actual physics.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I am Italian and I can fairly easily tell she’s just kidding. Maybe it’s not first-class humour (it’s quite dumb, in fact) but there’s no way it can be serious.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Considering how modern global economy disconnected from common sense and common people everyday “reality” (I’m not criticizing, just stating the fact), why should physics be any different ?
So people don’t understand what quantum mechanics is about, but most of people don’t understand what M3 money supply is about either. It’s not that physicists do especially bad job of explanation what they are doing, it’s that modern world is extremely complex, whether it’s physics theories, internet security or credit crunch.
December 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
John - I wish someone at the Guardian had written about the problem with modern art ‘music’! Have you seen this trash? http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/jan/24/classicalmusicandopera
Anyway, my two cents (I’ll pretend an undergrad’s opinion matters for now
) - she’s not being serious, there’s too little argument and too many random jabs about E=mc^2 and the A-bomb, but her jokes really suck.
December 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
The point would appear to be “Give us 500+ words (originality not required) that will wind up plenty of readers and start a few fights, boost visitor traffic and links over the Christmas period, and keep the advertisers coming in”. Which, minus the “over the Christmas period” bit and usually played less openly for laughs, is the entire raison d’etre of CiF. Had you not noticed?
December 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So, after some long period of time, the Guardian eventually writes an article on a subject you actually know something about . What a surprise when it turns out to be a complete load of bollocks.
December 26th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
If i was intending to be extraordinarily charitable, i might suggest that she is making good fun of the vast majority of citizens in the US. This actually reads much like a silly essay by a typical high school student attempting the SAT. Having suffered through piles of these i might consider that an adult in England could satirize the stupidity of the majority of Americans. On the other hand, it clearly isn’t funny because of that.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Somehow article reminds me of Sarah Palin’s appearance on SNL where she tried hard to sound funny (and ofcourse failed).
“I’m not sure that the physicists are choosing their projects wisely.”
Atleast physicists chose their topics (including quantum measurement problem) about which they have some clue and atleast a lot of passion, not unlike some of the journalists who just make fool of themselves.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Yes, the article is about confirming its readers’ prejudices. Like every other article in The Guardian. [Hint: when was the last time you saw them taking a line that you could not have predicted, very easily?]
December 27th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I had read the piece before seeing this and thought it was hilarious. I don’t disagree with the fact that much pop culture is quite abusive and distrustful of science, but this piece doesn’t belong to that line of thinking. Look up some of Hanson’s other pieces–they’re not meant to be taken seriously at all. On the other hand, I am not a scientist; I suspect that if the article were poking fun at my profession, I would find it hard to see it for the joke piece that it is.
I do think it a bit sad that the comments left on the Guardian article itself also attempt to bolster or discredit the argument “against quantum physics,” whereas there isn’t any argument there. It’s just comedy–whether poor (as some of you have judged it) or rather fun (as it came across to me).
December 27th, 2008 at 3:27 am
This is the problem with Comment is Free, they run so much nonsense, it’s hard to know when they’re joking…
December 27th, 2008 at 4:30 am
The unfortunate application of this jejune attitude is not in the case of quantum mechanics (without which much of 21-st century technology would not have been developed) but in the case of atmospheric physics, aka anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
In the case of of QM, nobody is going to stop funding the research or stop buying the products because of foolish, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, articles. We can’t have the same level of confidence concerning the results of AGW studies, which will need a tablespoon of economical pain to implement.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Aren’t we meant to read these pieces as like a Christmas party game where regular Cif contributors are assigned unconventional topics to write on for a bit of festive fun? Cath Elliott on boy bands? Rupa Huq on Bulgarian turbo-folk? I can’t believe we are meant to take any of this seriously.
It doesn’t appear to me that Michele Hanson chose her subject and, to my ear, she’s adopted a tone of self-deprecation towards her admitted ignorance while gently hinting that physicists might do a better job of explaining themselves. I can’t convince myself that there is any serious undertone of “sour grapes” here. I don’t think she is trying to make any deep points at all.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
OK, here’s another try (by me) :-
“Obama will be the first US president with a negro father, and thus the first one
with a Schwarzchild radius?”
I too, don’t think she is trying to make any deep points at all. Just humour using buzzwords taken from quantum physics. TANSTAAFLaugh.
December 27th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I agree Matt (Leifer, hi how are things!). I think she is trying to be funny and mischievous, but I think it ends up just being kinda moronic and not very funny, and not very clever.
Anti-science snobs will find it funny in the way people find comfort in reading a wikipedia article about something they are already know, while most lay persons will just read the article and go “huh?”
December 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Before I actually read the article, I did “follow the links” and found that the principles of Cif are outlined in this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2002/nov/29/1
December 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
After reading Ms. Hansen’s post, I think its a perfectly reasonable criticism that can be summed up as:
“No matter where you go, there you are.”
December 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I read that years ago. It didn’t help me here though.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Sorry, here is the best I can come up with…
I think the only recourse is to define charade
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charade
The Cif article I linked has a good quote:
“As organisation grows personality may tend to disappear. It is much to control one newspaper well; it is perhaps beyond the reach of any man, or any body of men, to control half a dozen with equal success. It is possible to exaggerate the danger, for the public is not undiscerning. It recognises the authentic voices of conscience and conviction when it finds them, and it has a shrewd intuition of what to accept and what to discount.”
I think the quote from Ms. Hansen’s article that was highlighted;
“I wonder whether there weren’t better things physicists could have been doing over the last century. Just look where their work has got them. Niels Bohr, whose research led to quantum mechanics theories, went off to work on the Manhattan Project, and we all know where that got us. Thank you Oppenheimer, Bohr et al for the atom bomb.”
Is purely satirical.
I think Ms Hansen achieved her goal of getting people fired up over nothing. The charade is the assumption that the public “has a shrewd intuition of what to accept and what to discount.”
December 29th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Hey Mark, thanks for linking to that. It was one of the more amusing presentations of the public perception of physics. I’m sorry to see that some people here can’t enjoy looking at something from such a different point of view, it was a nice lampooning.