Scientific Fundamentalism

The September 2007 edition of Physics World, the in-house magazine of the Institute of Physics, featured an article by Joanne Brunker entitled “Physglish: our coded speech”. This was one of a series of short essays under the heading “Lateral Thoughts”, essays supposed to be a bit fun and to provoke some thinking in the physics community. Brunker’s main point is that we should take every opportunity to couch our descriptions of the world in physics terms, an approach she dub “physglish”.

My disturbed reaction to her piece was printed under the heading “Physdamentalism” as a Letter in this month’s edition of the magazine. Here it is.

Joanna Brunker (September p64) wants to improve the public’s familiarity with physics terms. Her intention is laudable; her proposed method dubious. She imagines generations of children using “physglish” (physics English, and presumably its counterparts in other languages) to describe going upstairs as raising their potential energy, riding a swing as executing simple harmonic motion, and the fun of a see-saw as resting on a rough balance of moments.

Perhaps a better term would be physics fundamentalism or “physdamentalism”, because why physics? Why should we not, for example, describe everything in terms of chemistry or biology? It is nothing new or profound to say that physics concepts underpin those other areas of science, but to aim at physics descriptions of everything is to say that other sciences are essentially empty of meaning in addition to the physics.

Moreover, by advocating the use of physglish we would risk creating a model of childhood that suppresses imagination, creativity and curiosity - all of which are vital for the process of scientific discovery. If you do not see why, then I suggest casting your mind back to a time in your own childhood when you rode a swing. You turn and look at your beloved carer and cry with glee “I’m flying to the Moon!” Imagine how you would feel if they respond “No, dear, it’s just simple harmonic motion”.