Chapter 2 — Closer to Reality

David begins this chapter by reflecting on an experience that he had when he was a graduate student. He was in a lab when he noticed some students looking at pictures of sky, trying to discern galaxies, stars and planets etc. from one another. He also decided to give it a go. He says that while he was observing, some questions started to form in his mind. His mind asked if there were life forms in those celestial objects, whether those lives were observing us at the same time and asking the same questions about us. He also wondered whether he was the first human to be spotting one of those galaxies and if anyone else would also pinpoint the same spots in the skies as him.

David ponders over the vastness of universe. He tells how different people have different reactions upon realizing the endless vastness of the universe. Some people get depressed imagining the scale of the universe. They are overwhelmed by how big it is and how small we are; it makes them feel insignificant. In contrast, some others feel relived at this feeling of insignificance. According to David, latter feeling is even worse than the former one. He explains how both feelings are unreasonable by saying, “Feeling insignificant because the universe is large has exactly the same logic as feeling inadequate for not being a cow. Or a herd of cows. The universe is not there to overwhelm us; it is our home, and our resource. The bigger the better.”

He then reflects upon the commonly held belief about science being a toil. He quotes Edison, “It is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration.” People think the same way about theoretical research, where they assume perspiration is having to go through mathematics and other theoretical equations and explanations. Mathematics is commonly thought to be uncreative. The reason behind this preposterous assumption is that Math is taken to be bunch of calculations and formulas. Computers can perform such tasks mindlessly and in much less time compared to humans. It is a misconception about mathematicians that they just substitute figures in formulas, where it is not so. They are the ones that create formulas which is anything but uncreative and mindless. The processes with which a human determines patterns is different from how computers make predictions. Computers can play chess and even win the games but they play mindlessly by calculating exhaustive number of combinations, determining every possible move. But when humans pay the game, they make it fun and creative, by observing nuances of opposing player, tricks and twists. The trails and toils which theoretical researchers have to go through are , similarly, fun and creative. All is not lost even if they fail, because even in failure there is gain in knowledge capital. Thus, David refutes Edison. He says that the researchers who only perspire miss the fun. The fun part of research is what powers the 99% of perspiration through its inspiration and motivation. The parts which keep researchers glued to the tasks and doesn’t let them get bored for decades. The joy and escalation in solving a problem surpasses happiness for any reward or recognition. For a scientist, journey is the reward.

Here David recalls the initial incident where he was still looking at the picture of the skies full of stars. He remembers laughing when he comes know that the picture he was observing was just a photographic error. It was picture of skies enlarged underneath microscope. The questions he had been asking naturally faded away. He then questions himself if he were ever looking at galaxies or were they all just smudges which he mistook to be galaxies. He asks, is misinterpretation really such a big error?

In experimental science, an error is a misinterpretation of causes. We design our experimental instruments to uncover objects and realities which we cannot perceive with our bare senses. So if a measurement or an instrument goes wrong, that directly affects our observation. That could lead to establishing false theories based upon wrong observations. It would be intuitive to think that scientific instruments bring us closer to reality we observe. But the fact is that they separate us from reality. Each instrument is an added layer of separation between us and the reality we observe. To interpret the reality we observe through instruments correctly, we need construct a proper theory related to it as first step. Astronomers these days hardly ever look up at the night skies, they hardly ever need look through telescopes. Their instruments give them pictures, graphs and figures they need interpret. But they work on them with theories. Different theories lead to different outcomes using same images or figures. Some might be looking for blackholes, others might be weighing the mysterious dark matter. With the help of appropriate theories to back them, they would interpret the same data differently but lead to results that point to truth. Different phenomena residing at the same place require their own explanations.

The better we understand a phenomena remote from our experience, the lengthier and more sophisticated its explanations become. If we digress at any point from the chain of explanations, we end up misinterpreting reality. But so far, the quest for good explanations has kept us on the right track. As Feynman said, we keep learning more about how not to fool ourselves. Thus is the reach of good explanations that they continuously and relentlessly discards erroneous explanations and reinforces truth.

The purpose of scientific instruments, through its associated theory, is to correct errors and illusions and to fill gaps that remain in theory. Scientific instruments are fragile. One wrong button could lead to disastrous results. Explanatory theories are important because they guide us towards building their respective instruments as error free as possible. Remarkable fact about instruments is that in them we have found methods to turn raw material on earth to observe phenomena light years away from us. Like conjuring a trick, these instruments fool can us about what is really out there. It is through good explanations that we fill the gaps created by instruments and make our theories a manifestation of truth.