|
|
‘Complementary science’ aims to fill in the gaps
Kat Austen, letters & community editor
On May 13, I attended the inaugural lecture of Hasok Chang, professor of philosophy of science at University College London. I don’t know if inaugural lectures are always so popular, but UCL’s Darwin lecture theatre was packed. People ended up sitting on the stairs for want of seats.
So what is so special about the guy? Chang, who has a background in physics and philosophy, trawls the history of science for forgotten, unsolved mysteries. He then goes back to the lab, an unfamiliar place for most philosophers, to get his hands dirty trying to solve the historical puzzles. He conducts what he provocatively calls “complementary science”.
Chang set about experimenting for himself and found that the boiling temperature of water varies according to the material and shape of the vessel in which it is heated, the type of heat, and the amount of dissolved air in the water. He was astounded that most of us are completely unaware that the temperature at which water boils can vary by 9 °C, yet it is something most of us do on a daily basis.
Chang’s next project is an investigation of the Voltaic pile, where the commonly accepted explanation of electron transfer between the copper and zinc plates, facilitated by acidic protons, does not completely add up. His research has implications for electrochemistry, as well as for how we teach science to students. Generations have been brought up to believe that the science we are taught at school is fully explained, but in fact there are still exciting, unanswered questions out there in our everyday experience.
Chang believes his complementary science plays an important role in furthering science. He drew an analogy with the Eiffel Tower. Science strives ever upwards, and like the tower, there are some gaps in the structure as it progresses.
But the phrase “complementary science” seems too close to “complementary medicine” for comfort. It would be a shame if prejudices against medicine’s counterpart were transferred to Chang’s work because of his choice of terminology.
Perhaps I am unduly worried. My reservations didn’t affect the reception of Chang’s work by a host of reputable scientists at his lecture, including Richard Catlow, dean of the faculty of mathematical and physical sciences, who closed the proceedings.
“There is still a lot we don’t know about mundane and everyday phenomena,” says Chang. “The history and philosophy of science has become a refuge for excluded scientific questions, which complementary science can answer.”
By highlighting these, Chang brings science back to the non-specialist, and fills in the gaps in our scientific Eiffel Tower at the same time.
