Greg Chalmers
editMission statement for Gregory Paul Chalmers.
My mission, in Wikipedia, is to make sure that scientific concepts and principles are defined and explained in a clear and simple manner. Definitions that use unfamilar or technical terms remain difficult to understand and should be simplified to permit comprehension by non-experts in the field.
English words often possess several meanings; figurative, transferred, specialized, obsolete and archaic. These additional meanings (connotations) are additional to the actual or most common meaning and will vary depending upon the field in which it is used.
Although I understand and appreciate that definitions will always need to use common words with connoted meanings; I believe that this is most often practiced when trying to load as much meaning into the definition as possible.
I propose that this is a flawed approach to the composition of definitions and should be avoided. The first sentence in any definition should provide the most common and most simple meaning without any qualification. The sentence should be of simple structure and secondary phrases and clauses should be left to later explanations of the term.
Editors should aim to introduce the meaning of the term in the most general and abstract form still in use. This should be one, simple idea. It should be stated plainly and without embellishment. The following text should then either clarify the most common or contemporary definition, taking care to avoid complex or specilised terms.
Having established the classical, or common meaning of the term, the text should then explore the definition in a systematic form that follows a logical or cronological exploration of the field.
We all appreciate the depthy contributions being made by specialists in their fields; however, we must maintain contact with the broad church that uses this resource. The majority of users are looking for straightforward explanations and clarifications of a dizzying array of unique information. We need to ensure that their search is quick and easy and can suspend at the point they deem to be sufficient for their understanding.
I find that I am often required to trawl through too much jargon before I arrive (if I ever do) at a clear and precise definition of the broad term I have selected. We need to understand and apply the needs of the user; not use this encyclopedia as a platform for our own agrandisment.
What do I know?
editNothing. I do not claim any authority in any field of human knowledge. I am a user of Wikipedia who would like to learn. I have an innate interest in physics and astro-physics that is not backed up with any tertiary education. As an autodidact, I have used any and all opportunities to 'pick the brains' of any specialists, experts and/or academics who had the patience and decency to engage me in conversation. I know that:
Up is up, down is down. Water is wet, cold is the absence of heat, etc. I understand that the orbital model for atomic structure is essentially allegorical and the actual orbital paths of electrons, in various shells, is more complex than the simple model implies. I understand the difference in the location and behaviour of the weak and the strong nuclear forces. I understand that it is the electromagnetic field that determines why I don't sink into the floor.
I don't know:
How physicists use the concept of 'field' to make sense of their computations; I thought the 'aether' was an outmoded concept. I understand how virtual quantum particles may emerge from the 0 quantum field, pseudo-exist for an instant and disappear back into the field. I do not understand how a zoo of quantum particles can take the place of reality and give rise to actual existence without using anything that is actually substantial.
I have a disquietening suspicion that science in general, and quantum physics in particular, have strayed so far from reality into the world of their own making, that they are no longer able to convey their meaning to ordinary souls.
It is getting to the point where lay-people, like myself, are expected to take "on faith" the conclusions of these isolated specialists. I don't ever want to mix my science with religion. I look to science for certainty. Imagine my shock when I find that specialists are immersed in never-ending arguements about the minutia of discrepencies encountered in their mathematical pure-lands and cannot give a straight answer to a simple question like:
What is matter? What is mass? What is energy? What is real? What actually exists?
Let alone more significant questions like: If all energy is conserved and matter is never lost, how can you make an atom bomb go 'boom'?
I consult an encyclopedia to find an answer. Science and technology show all the signs of actually knowing something of what they are manipulating. Why can't I get a universally agreed and understood answer to a fundamental question?