What’s more important in scientific research: the part or the whole? (Focusing on the debate between Heisenberg, Burton, and Dirac)

This article is a reflection on which is more important in scientific research: partial understanding or holistic connections, based on a discussion of Heisenberg, Burton, and Dirac’s approach to science. I support Dirac’s incremental approach and emphasize that we should aim for the correct understanding of natural phenomena.

 

Parts and Whole is a record of conversations, discussions, and his own thoughts on a variety of topics with people he met while researching atomic physics. The book is not just a description of physics theories, but also goes deep into the background and context of the academic debates among scientists at the time, so there is no single argument that runs through the book, but rather a series of independent topics in each chapter. I’m going to focus on the discussion of atomic physics and the pragmatist mindset. This discussion reveals the scientific paradigm shift surrounding quantum mechanics and the conflict between different interpretive perspectives on it.
The following is the background to this discussion. Heisenberg was advocating the indeterminacy principle, which was a major contribution to the interpretation of quantum phenomena, when he traveled to the United States to lecture on it. Heisenberg was surprised at how readily American physicists accepted the new theory, which he attributed to the differences in the academic climate between Europe and America at the time. The discussion centered on Heisenberg’s conversations with the American physicist Burton and his colleague Paul Dirac. The three men had different opinions, which led to differences in scientific approach.
Burton emphasized the pragmatic acquisition of new areas of physics. He believed that the laws of nature were merely a way of expressing them so that we could make practical use of them. In other words, the purpose of science was not to explore the nature of nature, but rather to explain natural phenomena in a way that humans could understand and utilize. Burton valued the practical utility of scientific concepts rather than their relevance. This position was common in American academia at the time, which focused on applying the results of scientific research to real-world industrial and technological advances. He analogized it to engineers building a bridge, who would add appropriate formulas to account for new variables, such as wind, whenever they considered them. In other words, the purpose of science should be to function as a tool for practical problem solving.
Heisenberg countered by emphasizing the immense relevance and simplicity of the laws of nature. He argued that the true purpose of science is to gain a deeper understanding of natural phenomena and identify their underlying principles. For example, he compared Newtonian mechanics to Einsteinian mechanics, explaining that the way Einsteinian mechanics encompasses areas that Newtonian mechanics does not explain is not a mere refinement, but a new paradigm. In other words, scientific progress is not achieved through incremental improvements, but through discontinuous leaps. He emphasized that scientific theories gain strength through associations that lead to simplified, coherent laws of nature, using the example that Newtonian mechanics can explain planetary motion much more simply than Ptolemy’s complex astronomical descriptions.
Dirac saw science as progressing through the interpretation of partial domains. He believed that scientific paradigms did not leap forward in a quantum leap, as Heisenberg had argued, but rather progressed incrementally based on empirical data. This position emphasized the gradual development of science based on experimental facts, reflecting the importance of experimental physics at the time. Dirac emphasized that in order to explain new concepts and phenomena in science, it is necessary to first collect and interpret experimental data, and it is through this gradual process that scientific laws are established, which ultimately lead to a correct understanding of the laws of nature. For him, the grand connections of nature were secondary.
Of these three opinions, I am closest to Dirac’s position. In understanding Burton’s new conception of science, I think there are limitations to approaching it in a similar way to engineering. Engineering focuses on the application of more or less established scientific theories, but at the cutting edge of science, where it is still evolving, this utilitarian approach can get in the way of understanding the nature of science. In particular, interpreting complex and esoteric theories such as quantum mechanics solely in practical terms risks overlooking the depth of the theory. I believe that scientific theories should aim to provide a deeper understanding of natural phenomena, not merely to explain them.
Heisenberg’s emphasis on the simplicity of natural laws is intuitively appealing, but not all scientific research works that way. Especially in the early stages of research, many theories can seem complex and esoteric, and the explanations of natural phenomena they provide can be incomplete. But Heisenberg’s argument is nonetheless valid because the ultimate goal of science is to discover the simple laws of nature.
In the end, Dirac’s approach most closely resembles the way I think science develops. He sees science as an incremental development based on empirical facts, which is a very realistic approach to the actual process of scientific research. The process of deriving general laws based on partial knowledge is very important while seeking a correct understanding of new phenomena. I believe that scientific research should not be limited to simple explanations, but should lead to a deeper understanding of natural phenomena.