Theory of Relativity and Pathological Science
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
Published: Fri, 13 Jul 2018
In March of 1918 Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington and his assistant E. Cottingham, went to the island of Principe off the West Coast of Africaāwith a second party stationed in Sobral, Brazilāto prepare for an experiment that would observe a total eclipse of the sun, and provide conclusive proof of Einsteinās theory of relativity. On 29 May 1919 they photographed a solar eclipse providing the basis for Eddingtonās claims of proving Einsteinās theory. The results of the experiment caused an international sensation, with Eddington being credited as the man who finally verified Einsteinās revolutionary theory. Recently, the experiment and its results have been the subject of debate. Eddingtonās methods and the nature of the experiment have cast doubt over its validity. Considered within Irving Langmuirās notion of āpathological scienceā, this paper argues that Eddingtonās canonical experiment displays many symptoms associated with pathological science, showing the danger of performing scientific experiments with predictions already in hand, and that have been derived from theory alone.
Regarding the theory of relativity, it was agreed that according to both Newton and Einsteinās theories, a strong gravitational field should have an effect on light rays. If Einsteinās theory were correct, light coming from the stars should be observably more bent during a solar eclipse as they pass through the sunās gravitational field than in Newtonās theory. Einstein believed that a starās light would be shifted twice as much. The expected displacements were 0.87 second of an arc in Newtonās theory versus 1.74 seconds of arc for Einsteinās. Since the sunās gravitational effect is much greater on light than that of the earth, a solar eclipse was the only way of experimentally verifying Einsteinās predictions. On the day of the experiment several problems existed. Skies were cloudy when the pictures were taken, and many problems were associated with the equipment. However, Eddington was able to obtain some useable data and presented the results at a special joint meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Society of London on 6 November 1919. The results from Sobral provided measurements from seven stars that gave a deflection of 1.98 Ā± 0.16 arc seconds, with results from Principe recorded at 1.61 Ā± 0.40 arc seconds. As Peter Coles states, āBoth were within the two standard errors of the Einstein value of 1.74 and more than two standard errors away from either zero or the Newtonian value of 0.87. Einstein had hit the jackpot.ā
On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving LangmuirāNobel laureate in chemistry in 1932āgave a lecture at the Knolls Research Laboratory where he addressed, āthe science of things that arenāt soā, giving examples of a problem he called āpathological scienceā. Langmuir identified six āsymptomsā of pathological science:
- The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
- The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measures are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
- Claims of great accuracy.
- Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
- Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
- Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
While a case could be made that each one of these symptoms can be found in Eddingtonās experiments, this paper will focus on two of them in particularānumber two and number five.
Experiments that fall into symptom number two have the common characteristic that they are very near the threshold of visibility of the eyes. The solar eclipse and the evidence it produced falls directly into this category. Collins and Pinch state, āIt is as though a star whose light grazed the edge of the sun would appear to be displaced by a distance equivalent to the width of a penny viewed from a mile away.ā Problems arising from this symptom are that data is easily rejected. According to Langmuir, āIf things were doubtful at allā, scientists ādiscard them or not discard them depending on whether or not they fit the theory.ā This is exactly what Eddington did with his results from Principe. He used only two photographic plates out of a total of 26 produced. From the plates, 18 were of very poor quality. These were completely ignored in his presentation and irrelevant to the experiment. His justification for this is related to the next symptom of pathological science. The fifth symptom maintains that any criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up at the spur of the moment. When confronted about the unused plates, Eddington justified ignoring the results by claiming they suffered from systematic error. However he was unable to produce any convincing evidence to show that this was the case. When he chose which observations to keep and which to throw away, Eddington had Einsteinās prediction very much in mind.
The general lessons to be learned from Eddingtonās work relate to the difficulties encountered when performing an experiment to verify a prediction based off theory. In Eddingtonās interpretation of the observations, he āseemed to confirm not only Einsteinās prediction about the actual displacement, but also his method of deriving the prediction from his theoryāsomething that no experiment can do.ā Eddington claimed to confirm Einstein because he had used Einsteinās derivations in interpreting what his observations really were, with the further paradox that Einsteinās derivations only became accepted because Eddingtonās observations appeared to confirm themāāObservation and prediction were linked in a circle of mutual confirmation rather than being independent of each other as we would expect according to the conventional idea of an experimental test.ā
Henry H. Bauer argues that āpathological scienceā is not scientific misconduct, and not done intentionally. Eddington was not purposely misguiding the scientific community. He was victim to common problems confronted by all scientists, especially physicists. As Trevor and Pinch note,
We have no reason to think that relativity is anything but the truthā¦but it is a truth which came into being as a result of decisions about how we should live our scientific lives, and how we should license our scientific observations; it was a truth brought about by agreement to agree about new things. It was not a truth forced on us by the inexorable logic of a set of crucial experiments.
- Bauer, Henry H. āPathological Science is not Scientific Misconduct, (nor is it pathological)ā, HyleāInternational Journal for the History of Chemistry, 8(1), 2002, pp.5-22.
- Coles, Peter. Einstein and the Total Eclipse. London: Icon Books, 1999.
- Collins, Harry and Pinch, Trevor. The Golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
- Langmuir, Iriving. āPathological Scienceā. Trans R.N. Hall. Colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory, December 18, 1953.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: