AS Science in Society – Critical Account sample 2
Who’s afraid of Schrodinger’s cat?’ I.Marshall, D. Zohar (1st edition, printed 1997)
The book I have been reading is called ‘Who’s afraid of Schrodinger’s cat?’ by Ian Marshall and
Danah Zohar. It is an overview of all the latest ideas in science and new thinking, and is designed to
operate as both a reference point and as a collection of scientific articles. I have read the prologue
and introduction as well as the articles entitled Fuzzy Logic (161),The Chinese Room (89),
Thinking (355) and Quarks (305). I shall review the articles Fuzzy Logic and Determinism.
Fuzzy logic (pg 161) is a new model of thinking that handles ‘grey areas’ and challenges the
traditional western way of thinking in black and white (that it to say things are either right or
wrong, one thing or the other and there is no room for ambiguousness or such). It is this Western
Logic that was established by Aristotle and is implemented by things such as computer systems and
mathematics.
In the beginning of the 20th century, culture and modern science moved away from the idea of
‘either or’, and allowed for grey areas to be considered. Einstein and Heisenberg became concerned
with this ‘other points of view’, and Heisenberg developed the Uncertainty Principle where there
could be uncertainty or only a partial answer or truth. It was compared to the Aristotelian logic and
in comparison it made little sense, but the theories it accounted for (Einstein’s relative frames) made
sense, and it became a great explainer for ideas in Quantum Physics. It led back to the traditional
eastern way of thinking, where contradictions and uncertainty are part of the culture and
understanding of life, such as those in Buddhism and traditional Chinese proverbs. This eastern way
of thinking means that something is not black or white. It examines closely the areas of grey in
between to get between those two points, much like a mathematician examines the points between
0-1 without moving from one to the other as a single amount.
This article also relates to the title of the book and the prologue, on Schrodinger’s theory. In it,
Schrodinger places his cat in a lead box with a trigger system that releases either cyanide or food for
the cat, depending on which switch is triggered by the random decay of a radioactive sample.
Schrodinger argues that we do not know whether the cat has been poisoned or fed, and is therefore
in two states, both alive and dead. He is neither one nor the other until we open the box to find out
which state he actually is.
I find this idea both confuses me and makes sense. Of course we cannot determine if the cat is dead
or alive until we open it and see for ourselves. It is Eastern logic that tells us that until we have
opened the box the cat is both alive and dead. It is understandable that we try to say using Schemas
that the cat will be one or the other, perhaps based on probability, but it is impossible to say for
certain which. Fuzzy Logic relies on the idea that we learn as we go along, ‘constantly readjusting’
to the various information we are given. It is effective in informing the reader of the argument
between western and eastern logic, and the moral issues it covers which could be extended as far as
the ‘grey’ issues of modern society; abortion or euthanasia. This is a really interesting article, it
really provoked deep thought from me, and although I have thought about it in depth I am no closer
to deciding which logic is best. Perhaps the western logic as I am a western individual brought up
on western values? Or perhaps the eastern logic holds more grounds for consideration? Or perhaps
either one is correct; depending on the situation it is applicable to.
The article on Determinism (pg 127) focuses upon the philosophy that things have to happen in a
certain way as the conditions surrounding the event indicate there is no other ways it could happen.
The article explores the determinist nature of the ancient Babylonian civilisation, which could
predict the phases of the moon and the occurrence of eclipses, but could not predict the weather or
foresee disease or famine. This was in comparison to cultures that believed in fate (such as the
Page 1
©The Nuffield Foundation, 2009
Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges
AS Science in Society – Critical Account sample 2
Greeks and the Christians), that operate around the principle that fate re-establishes the ‘imbalances
in behavioural matter’; i.e. eventually the fire that burns out of control consumes itself. The Greek
idea of fate could coexist with the ideas of human freedom of choice and of chance, much
like all the eastern philosophies. Determinism is a sentiment that underpins all classic physics,
stemming from Newton’s early principles of motion. Particles and matter behave in a certain way
because the conditions determined it had to happen that way, there could be no alternatives.
However, modern sciences have also developed out of this idea. The authors touch upon Freud’s
psychological theory that we are what we are because of the events that shaped our childhood; we
are the adult of today because our childhood pushed us to this point and there is no other way we
could have developed.
Fundamentally, the authors conclude that non-deterministic ideas cannot be scientifically proven,
and that even Einstein, whose quantum theories rely on the idea of chance could not accept his
science’s lack of determinism. Being a Christian I am more accepting to the theory of Determinism
over Indeterminacy, as Einstein said “God does not play dice with the universe”. I think that things
happen the way they do for a reason, although I do not necessarily believe in fate; after all, we are
not determined by the person we were or the actions we have done, but the person we exist as in the
present time. We make our own destinies, but perhaps they are guided more because of the context
in which they are set than by pure chance. There has to be some kind of balance. I am not sure what
my overall conclusion on this theory is, perhaps it falls into the category of fuzzy logic as we are
probably never going to be able to say definite which is right, determinism and fate or
indeterminism and pure chance. Need they be mutually exclusive? This article is presented in a
particularly clear way, which contrasts nicely to the ambiguous nature of the argument.
Overall, the book is well written and the language is easily accessible to a vast range of readers, for
recreational and academic use. The issues raised in the extracts I have analysed could be related to
modern issues outside of science, such as euthanasia; is it right or wrong? Or is it both right and
wrong, and in which case, which state does it fall under? The article I read on determinism
examines abstractly the role of God, her existence and her guidance of us, or on the flipside, the role
of chaos and the fact we exist as we do by pure chance. This questions our role in life; do we have
one and what is expected of us? The style of the book, like the language is accessible. It can be used
as a scientific dictionary to look up theories and gain a basic overview, or it can be read through as
one piece, giving a detailed understanding of modern issues in science.
Page 2
©The Nuffield Foundation, 2009
Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges