Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces

The reasoning errors of experts in teaching or popularization situations are always surprising. However, they often correspond to “complexity-reducing” schemes, some of which have been categorized for a long time, especially concerning the role of causality. If we restrict ourselves to cases where t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Viennot Laurence
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: EDP Sciences 2022-01-01
Series:EPJ Web of Conferences
Online Access:https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2022/07/epjconf_complexity-disorder2021_01007.pdf
_version_ 1818202833150803968
author Viennot Laurence
author_facet Viennot Laurence
author_sort Viennot Laurence
collection DOAJ
description The reasoning errors of experts in teaching or popularization situations are always surprising. However, they often correspond to “complexity-reducing” schemes, some of which have been categorized for a long time, especially concerning the role of causality. If we restrict ourselves to cases where the reasoning in question leads to the correct result and excludes technical errors, there is still a range of relatively unknown types of invalidity - even though they are in fact very well represented in teaching and popular science practices. The aim of this presentation is to highlight the importance of situating these types of reasoning in a list of problematic explanatory situations previously identified. After a quick reminder of the most well-known elements of such a list, such as “functional reduction” and “linear causal reasoning”, the presentation will focus on cases where the demonstration used seems to surreptitiously remove from the explanatory landscape one of the relevant variables of the phenomenon to be explained. Various examples will show that such a case can be observed in very diverse fields of physics. A case concerning capillary forces - the “liquid bridge” - will introduce a discussion we can have as educators according to our more or less informed treatment of these explanatory situations. At stake: conceptual coherence.
first_indexed 2024-12-12T03:15:43Z
format Article
id doaj.art-9d3574a9108b48bcad4295d4157c243a
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2100-014X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-12T03:15:43Z
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher EDP Sciences
record_format Article
series EPJ Web of Conferences
spelling doaj.art-9d3574a9108b48bcad4295d4157c243a2022-12-22T00:40:17ZengEDP SciencesEPJ Web of Conferences2100-014X2022-01-012630100710.1051/epjconf/202226301007epjconf_complexity-disorder2021_01007Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forcesViennot Laurence0Université Paris Cité, Matter and Complex Systems, UMR 7057The reasoning errors of experts in teaching or popularization situations are always surprising. However, they often correspond to “complexity-reducing” schemes, some of which have been categorized for a long time, especially concerning the role of causality. If we restrict ourselves to cases where the reasoning in question leads to the correct result and excludes technical errors, there is still a range of relatively unknown types of invalidity - even though they are in fact very well represented in teaching and popular science practices. The aim of this presentation is to highlight the importance of situating these types of reasoning in a list of problematic explanatory situations previously identified. After a quick reminder of the most well-known elements of such a list, such as “functional reduction” and “linear causal reasoning”, the presentation will focus on cases where the demonstration used seems to surreptitiously remove from the explanatory landscape one of the relevant variables of the phenomenon to be explained. Various examples will show that such a case can be observed in very diverse fields of physics. A case concerning capillary forces - the “liquid bridge” - will introduce a discussion we can have as educators according to our more or less informed treatment of these explanatory situations. At stake: conceptual coherence.https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2022/07/epjconf_complexity-disorder2021_01007.pdf
spellingShingle Viennot Laurence
Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces
EPJ Web of Conferences
title Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces
title_full Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces
title_fullStr Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces
title_full_unstemmed Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces
title_short Typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics The case of capillary forces
title_sort typology of pitfalls for causal analyses in physics the case of capillary forces
url https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2022/07/epjconf_complexity-disorder2021_01007.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT viennotlaurence typologyofpitfallsforcausalanalysesinphysicsthecaseofcapillaryforces