4 ms·

> Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was

> Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? But that's not quite true, is it. In the one case, he's asking someone to explain a very specific thing (one particular physical law), and in the other you're asking if they have been exposed to any example from a large set of things (any of Shakespeare's plays). If he'd asked "how many of you have heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics", or if he'd asked "how many of you can describe the plot of Coriolanus" the questions would be closer to equivalent. Nitpicky, but relevant in the sense that it's not a fair example as originally stated.

M3L0NM4N 4y ago
I don't think that's nitpicky, I think that's a very clear flaw.
jameshart 4y ago
I think Snow is assuming that given that audience (academics educated in the traditional humanities) that if someone affirms they have ‘read’ something they can be assumed to also know what that thing was about.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajross 4y ago
It's also picking on a particularly difficult area. The "second law of thermodynamics" is actually extremely subtle. In its original formulation it's basically a big mess talking about energy flows. In its simple/elegant/modern form, it relies on an understanding of this crazy thing called "entropy" which is measured like energy but isn't, and which gets pushed with an "intuitive" interpretation that is anything but ("disorder" ... is a measurable thing with numbers associated with it?!). Frankly if you take a bunch of actual physics students out of the crowd immediately after having taken their final exam in statistical mechanics and ask them that same question, my guess is you'd only see about 50% of them give a confident and correct answer. So... yeah. If you instead ask a bunch of random people "can anyone explain the idea of conservation of energy?" (the first law, of course), you're going to do much better.
- asdfman123 4y ago
  Lots of people just don’t have the brainpower to be comfortable with abstract physical or mathematical concepts. Nearly everyone can understand a love story.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    Isn't part of the point of Romeo and Juliet that it's not a love story? Romeo and Juliet thought they were in love but they really were hormonal teens who knew each other for only two days. My understanding is that's the purpose of Romeo's initial infatuation with Rosaline; it shows that he's really just someone in love with the idea of being in love.
    - asdfman123 4y ago
      Potato potato
- d0mine 4y ago
  It is not that hard to understand that a broken glass won't mend itself spontaneously
  - ajross 4y ago
    No, but understanding that fact is at most a naive and useless understanding the second law of thermodynamics. It's the numbers in there that make it a scientific "law". And a numeric understanding of entropy is totally bananas.
    - lcuff 4y ago
      For some definition of useless, I suppose. Without trying to be contrary, most of what I (we) know is 'useless' in terms of whether my knowing it has a "useful" impact on my life. Knowing that there's an equation governing gravitational attraction doesn't really impact my life experientially. It's true that if you're trying to design any system that involves a Carnot cycle, it becomes useful, but given no such job description, it's not 'useful' information. Much of science _is_ useful in our STEM-oriented world, to those using it. I think some of the reality is that regardless of most other factors in our lives, love and relationships are a Big Deal, so stories in that realm have in some small way more usefulness. Thus, I know the plot of Romeo and Juliet better than I can give a summary of the Second Law.
pessimizer 4y ago
I don't buy that. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not only basic, but can be stated in a sentence. Being able to generally recall the plot of Romeo & Juliet (or any Shakespeare play) is objectively harder than being able to spit out that sentence. I'll make the bold claim that Second Law of Thermodynamics would be recalled by far more scientists than the plot of Coriolanus would be by MFAs. The worst thing we do is fail to teach statistics to liberal arts majors. Then, as citizens, they make obvious mistakes about the relative costs and effects of things they advocate for or are against, and can be easily manipulated in any direction with attacks on their availability heuristics.
- asdfman123 4y ago
  I would bet you money if you asked a random sampling of college grads, 10x the number of people could roughly summarize Romeo and Juliet than the second law of thermodynamics.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Which is a bit of shame since the two cultures are of roughly equal importance to the future prospects of college grads.
  - jameshart 3y ago
    The Two Cultures isn’t just about lamenting that science knowledge is underrepresented though. The tragedy is that for a typical college grad they can do one or the other but not both.
- groby_b 4y ago
  >>> is objectively harder I don't think it's objectively harder - at the very least, [citation needed]. It might be subjectively harder for you. But one is a random factoid, the other one is a story. Humans are, in general, exceedingly good at stories. Facts, we tend to focus on the areas we know. You and I might be good at physics facts, or software facts. Somebody else might be good at agriculture facts, or knitting facts, or what-have-you. But stories are universal. They connect. It's how most of humanity learns and shares knowledge. (See e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02036-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02036-8) There's a pretty good likelihood that stories are ultimately easier to remember for a larger number of people than facts. >>> Then, as citizens, they make obvious mistakes about the relative costs and effects of things they advocate for I'll note that you're possibly wrong about relative costs of learning, too. What matters isn't only what you learn (though teaching stats would sure be a good thing), but also a willingness to approach issues with a bit of humility, and not claiming something as absolute fact until it provably is.
alanbernstein 4y ago
But the second law of thermodynamics is such a fundamental physical law. Here is a more apt equivalent question: "do you read a book front to back or back to front?" (Mostly joking)
bawolff 4y ago
I feel like knowing the rough plot of hamlet is about equivalent of knowing roughly what the idea of newton's law of gravity is.
Chinjut 4y ago
"The second law of thermodynamics" is also a rather undescriptive name. Which one is called the first law, which one is called the second law, which one is called the third law, etc? I can't keep it straight myself.
watwut 3y ago
I would also point out that Shakespeare plays are ... well plays. Nit something meant to be read, byt something meant to be seen. And most people read it only if their school assigned it as mandatory reading, because reading plays is not much of a pleasure.
chrisatthestudy 3y ago
"Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body." Thank you, Flanders and Swann! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs

M3L0NM4N 4y ago

I don't think that's nitpicky, I think that's a very clear flaw.

jameshart 4y ago

I think Snow is assuming that given that audience (academics educated in the traditional humanities) that if someone affirms they have ‘read’ something they can be assumed to also know what that thing was about.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ajross 4y ago

It's also picking on a particularly difficult area. The "second law of thermodynamics" is actually extremely subtle. In its original formulation it's basically a big mess talking about energy flows. In its simple/elegant/modern form, it relies on an understanding of this crazy thing called "entropy" which is measured like energy but isn't, and which gets pushed with an "intuitive" interpretation that is anything but ("disorder" ... is a measurable thing with numbers associated with it?!). Frankly if you take a bunch of actual physics students out of the crowd immediately after having taken their final exam in statistical mechanics and ask them that same question, my guess is you'd only see about 50% of them give a confident and correct answer. So... yeah. If you instead ask a bunch of random people "can anyone explain the idea of conservation of energy?" (the first law, of course), you're going to do much better.

asdfman123 4y ago
Lots of people just don’t have the brainpower to be comfortable with abstract physical or mathematical concepts. Nearly everyone can understand a love story.
- harimau777 4y ago
  Isn't part of the point of Romeo and Juliet that it's not a love story? Romeo and Juliet thought they were in love but they really were hormonal teens who knew each other for only two days. My understanding is that's the purpose of Romeo's initial infatuation with Rosaline; it shows that he's really just someone in love with the idea of being in love.
  - asdfman123 4y ago
    Potato potato
d0mine 4y ago
It is not that hard to understand that a broken glass won't mend itself spontaneously
- ajross 4y ago
  No, but understanding that fact is at most a naive and useless understanding the second law of thermodynamics. It's the numbers in there that make it a scientific "law". And a numeric understanding of entropy is totally bananas.
  - lcuff 4y ago
    For some definition of useless, I suppose. Without trying to be contrary, most of what I (we) know is 'useless' in terms of whether my knowing it has a "useful" impact on my life. Knowing that there's an equation governing gravitational attraction doesn't really impact my life experientially. It's true that if you're trying to design any system that involves a Carnot cycle, it becomes useful, but given no such job description, it's not 'useful' information. Much of science _is_ useful in our STEM-oriented world, to those using it. I think some of the reality is that regardless of most other factors in our lives, love and relationships are a Big Deal, so stories in that realm have in some small way more usefulness. Thus, I know the plot of Romeo and Juliet better than I can give a summary of the Second Law.

pessimizer 4y ago

I don't buy that. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not only basic, but can be stated in a sentence. Being able to generally recall the plot of Romeo & Juliet (or any Shakespeare play) is objectively harder than being able to spit out that sentence. I'll make the bold claim that Second Law of Thermodynamics would be recalled by far more scientists than the plot of Coriolanus would be by MFAs. The worst thing we do is fail to teach statistics to liberal arts majors. Then, as citizens, they make obvious mistakes about the relative costs and effects of things they advocate for or are against, and can be easily manipulated in any direction with attacks on their availability heuristics.

asdfman123 4y ago
I would bet you money if you asked a random sampling of college grads, 10x the number of people could roughly summarize Romeo and Juliet than the second law of thermodynamics.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Which is a bit of shame since the two cultures are of roughly equal importance to the future prospects of college grads.
- jameshart 3y ago
  The Two Cultures isn’t just about lamenting that science knowledge is underrepresented though. The tragedy is that for a typical college grad they can do one or the other but not both.
groby_b 4y ago
>>> is objectively harder I don't think it's objectively harder - at the very least, [citation needed]. It might be subjectively harder for you. But one is a random factoid, the other one is a story. Humans are, in general, exceedingly good at stories. Facts, we tend to focus on the areas we know. You and I might be good at physics facts, or software facts. Somebody else might be good at agriculture facts, or knitting facts, or what-have-you. But stories are universal. They connect. It's how most of humanity learns and shares knowledge. (See e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02036-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02036-8) There's a pretty good likelihood that stories are ultimately easier to remember for a larger number of people than facts. >>> Then, as citizens, they make obvious mistakes about the relative costs and effects of things they advocate for I'll note that you're possibly wrong about relative costs of learning, too. What matters isn't only what you learn (though teaching stats would sure be a good thing), but also a willingness to approach issues with a bit of humility, and not claiming something as absolute fact until it provably is.

alanbernstein 4y ago

But the second law of thermodynamics is such a fundamental physical law. Here is a more apt equivalent question: "do you read a book front to back or back to front?" (Mostly joking)

bawolff 4y ago

I feel like knowing the rough plot of hamlet is about equivalent of knowing roughly what the idea of newton's law of gravity is.

Chinjut 4y ago

"The second law of thermodynamics" is also a rather undescriptive name. Which one is called the first law, which one is called the second law, which one is called the third law, etc? I can't keep it straight myself.

watwut 3y ago

I would also point out that Shakespeare plays are ... well plays. Nit something meant to be read, byt something meant to be seen. And most people read it only if their school assigned it as mandatory reading, because reading plays is not much of a pleasure.

chrisatthestudy 3y ago

"Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body." Thank you, Flanders and Swann! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs