To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Jeffrey Marsh’s “Physics vs. Metaphysics” [November 1993]. First, Mr. Marsh misdescribes Steven Weinberg’s expectation that a final theory of physics will be developed by calling it “Platonism” or the result of a “desperate need.” It is, rather, merely an example of the optimism with which every successful scientist pursues his work. It is unlikely that Weinberg will fall into depression or despair if his hope for a “theory of everything” is not realized.

Physicists do not observe design in nature or assume it in their theories. They observe order. Order and design are not synonyms. One cannot, by definition, have design without a designer, i.e., an agent (human or superhuman) who plans and intends to bring about a result. The same is not true of order, and it is the inference from order to design that needs justification. So far, attempts to provide that justification have failed.

The physicist Bryan Appleyard, whose views Mr. Marsh apparently endorses, seems to be one of those romantics who envision a golden age, a time when moral sensibilities had not yet been corrupted by science. It is difficult to determine . . . just when that happy state prevailed, but the assumption of a golden age does have its attractions for those who sermonize upon the sins of society. It is likely, however, that less respectable motives often underlie the denigration of science. Modern science, especially physics, is abstract and difficult, and its reliance upon esoteric mathematics guarantees that relatively few people will have the inclination or ability to comprehend it. This creates resentment, especially among literary intellectuals who envy the prestige of scientists and the financial support they receive. . . . Another and more traditional cause of resentment is that science does not, and cannot, support a belief in a supernaturally established scheme of things in which each person is important and in which his heart’s desires will, in the long run, be satisfied.

Will . . . Mr. Marsh please explain the difference between questions of value and questions of ultimate value? And . . . truth versus ultimate truth? It is true that snow is white and the Holocaust occurred during World War II; what additional information is conveyed by saying that these statements are “ultimately” true? Perhaps those who want ultimate truth are really asking for logical necessity under a misleading label. If so, they can find it in logic and pure mathematics, but nowhere else.

It is a caricature of modern physics to claim that all of the entities that occur in its theories are, or should be, observable. No one has ever seen a quantum-mechanical psi function or an electric-field vector, and no one ever will. Even a particle such as a neutrino can be observed only in the sense that its presence is detected through complex inferences based on theory. An experimenter actually sees nothing except instrument readings, tracks in bubble chambers, and the like.

Appleyard’s most bizarre claim is that the popularity of pseudo-science—he mentions food faddism and other nostrums peddled by hucksters and cultists—is somehow attributable to science itself. No doubt an explanation in terms of human ignorance and gullibility would not serve his purposes.

David A. Shotwell
Alpine, Texas

_____________

Jeffrey Marsh writes:

David A. Shotwell correctly characterizes Steven Weinberg’s approach to physics as optimistic and points out that the existence of some of the entities in physical theories is inferred rather than observed directly. But I used the terms “Platonic” and “desperate” for Weinberg’s final theory because it relies on a far greater degree of inference than is normally the case. As the physicist David Lindley, whom I quoted in my article, says, “[The] theory of everything . . . can be neither tested nor disproved.”

I must confess an inability to draw a clear distinction, as Mr. Shotwell does, between “order” and “design.” He would say that a portrait of a man shows design because it was painted by an artist, but it would seem that the existence of the artist himself provides evidence only of order, not design.

When I wrote of Bryan Appleyard’s belief that popular acceptance of scientific modes of thought has delegitimized the consideration of questions of ultimate value that are not subject to measurement, I had in mind such subjects as the meaning of human life, which some people consider particularly important. I think it appropriate to use the term “ultimate truths” to refer to the answers to such questions and Mr. Shotwell seems to agree that science does not provide these answers.

It is certainly plausible, as Mr. Shotwell maintains, that some literary intellectuals denigrate science because of envy, but it is irrelevant to anything I wrote. And, to carp a little, those unscientific souls who accept a “supernaturally established scheme of things in which each person is important” do not assume that their “heart’s desires will, in the long run, be satisfied.” They believe that such a happy outcome occurs only for people willing to make a very serious effort to control their desires and behavior.