Independent Mind

[coberst]

Independent Mind


“Joseph Schwab said in 1962 that science is most commonly taught as a ”rhetoric of conclusions." He developed sophisticated arguments for teaching science as "enquiry."

An independent mind is one that is grounded in ‘enquiry’. Enquiry demands the ability to develop significant questions and the ability to utilize good judgment while separating the wheat from the chaff.

John Dewey, a great philosopher, psychologist, and pedagogy discussed the discrepancy between the skills valued in adults and the skills taught to children in schools. Dewey lamented the fact that independent thinking skills were demanded of adults but our children were being taught the converse in our schools.

My grade school, high school and college education convinces me that Dewey is accurate. I am a retired engineer and my contact with the sciences of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering were completely an experience that was algorithmic (a step-by-step procedure for solving problems) in nature. Later I took courses in the humanities and these were more of a historic enquiry into who thought what and why they thought it at the time that they did so.

In my opinion the natural sciences do not prepare an individual to become an independent mind whereas the humanities do a better job of that. Does your schooling lead you to agree with me and Dewey?

[Jimbo07]

My grade school, high school and college education convinces me that Dewey is accurate. I am a retired engineer and my contact with the sciences of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering were completely an experience that was algorithmic (a step-by-step procedure for solving problems) in nature. Later I took courses in the humanities and these were more of a historic enquiry into who thought what and why they thought it at the time that they did so.

In my opinion the natural sciences do not prepare an individual to become an independent mind whereas the humanities do a better job of that. Does your schooling lead you to agree with me and Dewey?

Nope.

I'm studying a program called Engineering Physics (not offered at every engineering school). It's an interesting hybrid between science and engineering. One difference I've noticed is that the pure physics classes are much harder than the engineering-oriented classes. You're expected to understand [the elegance of] your argument when solving problems, rather than in engineering where all of the solutions are in the back of the text.

I've also taken many more courses in humanities over my meandering education than the average engineer. At the undergraduate level at least, they spoon-feed garbage that's barely worth knowing (to the point where a 'history of technology' prof. wound up misquoting Bill Gates). (Note: I don't need to argue a 'sour grapes' position)

Philosophy, history, etc. have a definite place in the realm of human inquiry. I don't want to understate their importance. I just want to dispute the idea that undergraduate education in science is more closed to pure enquiry than the humanities. There's no point having an 'independent mind,' without undergoing the torture ;) of developing rigorous tools for logical/experimental thought. I'm afraid that this could happen in the humanities.

As well, although engineering, science and the humanities are not the same, each must establish certain disciplines in its' undergraduate students. For example: in science maybe care in experiment, and proper reporting (scientific notation) must be developed, in the humanities perhaps coherent argument, good writing, and in engineering, rigorous application of engineering formulae, be it for mechanical systems or electronic circuits. Developing these 'disciplines' may not seem like freeing a mind... but what use is freedom without discipline? How could somebody without writing skills be exposed as free minded in the humanities? Similarly, how good is scientific enquiry without discipline and rigour in the lab? :confused:

ETA: It gets much worse at the high school level. Though some kids may be smart, and teachers try their best, they cannot be expected to have a professional level of discipline (in either the humanities, or natural sciences). It's scary when either skeptics or ID proponents (say) make statements like, "children should be taught critical thinking." The latter has a political agenda, and the former runs the risk of trying separate critical thinking from humanities, maths and sciences.

These are complex issues, and all lead me to vehemently state that: at the undergraduate level, the humanities do no more to create 'independent minds,' than the natural sciences. This in no way reflects the quality of individual humanities or science programs at the highschool, undergrad or graduate levels.

[coberst]

Jimbo

You write very well. Do you think that your humanities studies may have helped you write this well?

I am curious about your remarks about critical thinking. I think that critical thinking is a very important addition to schooling. Did you receive some training in critical thinking?

[Jimbo07]

Jimbo

You write very well. Do you think that your humanities studies may have helped you write this well?

I haven't denied all worth of the humanities, just the claim that, "the natural sciences do not prepare an individual to become an independent mind whereas the humanities do a better job of that." I think we simply have a difference of opinion.

I think our difference of opinion is compounded by the fact that neither of us have any background in education theory (correct me if I'm wrong :o ).


I think that critical thinking is a very important addition to schooling. Did you receive some training in critical thinking?

No.

My wife's youngest sister is taking something called CTS, which I believe is 'critical thinking skills' (at the junior high level). I'm old enough to think of classes like this as a 'modern phenomenon' ;). I don't know anything about the background of the teachers, so I won't comment on the material as I understand it. Instead, in a general sense, I will say that I hope that independent (that is, separated from humanities and science education) critical thinking classes do not wind up being taught by teachers with poor critical thinking skills. :boggled:

[coberst]

Jimbo

I am not a teacher but I have given a lot of thought to education, learning, and especially self-learning.

CT (Critical Thinking) is one of my hobby horses. I use this method of speaking about critical thinking because I needed some way of making it clear to the reader that I am NOT talking about ‘down home critical thinking’.

I feel that CT is a major addition to our schooling process in America. Our schools have primarily taught us what to think and CT is trying to teach youngsters how to think. This is a major and very important happening.

The major problem in this effort is the fact that our teachers never learned how to think and thus it is a major task to prepare teachers to become Critical Thinkers much less helping them to learn how to teach the subject.

[Jimbo07]

coberst,

I think we're the only ones playing in this sandbox...

:con2:

[drkitten]

In my opinion the natural sciences do not prepare an individual to become an independent mind whereas the humanities do a better job of that.

I disagree entirely. One of the key aspects of the natural sciences is the epistemological framework; the data are what they are, and are (at least in theory, and in well-taught schools in practice) independent of both the teacher and the student. I remember well an incident in a secondary-school chemistry class where I and the teacher disagreed on whether or not a particualr solution would be acidic or alkaline. Thirty seconds at the lab bench and I was holding a rosy-pink solution and admitting defeat, not because of the teacher's authority, but because it's very hard to argue with the phenolphthalein. I've had similar arguments (and won them) on similar empirical evidence.

You can't do something like that in history or sociology (or even worse, in literature). There is no phenolphthalein that would let me test whether, for example, Emily Dickinson was a lesbian. If I disagree with the teacher,.... well, there are no independent sources of evidence. We've both read the same works, and if the teacher finds my arguments unconvincing I will simply fail. That's the very opposite of "independent mind."

I would argue precisely the opposite -- the humanities actually stifle the ability to "enquire" because there is nothing to enquire about. You can't look at anything for yourself, but merely compare what other people have already said in answer to the same question.

[Jimbo07]

There is no phenolphthalein that would let me test whether, for example, Emily Dickinson was a lesbian.

Excuse me? You've never heard of lesbolphthalein? :p


I would argue precisely the opposite -- the humanities actually stifle the ability to "enquire" because there is nothing to enquire about. You can't look at anything for yourself, but merely compare what other people have already said in answer to the same question.

Perhaps the illusion comes from the fact that humanities scholars can be competent, or even creative, writers. They can manipulate language to appear "open-minded." They can perpetuate the popular illusion that because to non-experts there's no interpretation to data (there can be correctness of interpretation, but that's another matter), that science stifles enquiry.

aside: I've often wondered about the validity of the study of history. Especially in the 20th Century, photographs gained popularity. A historian looking back could examine at a photograph and say, 'these two leaders met at this meeting, here's a photo to prove it.' Is this statement about the photograph considered to be a 'fact?' Is it conjecture to then go on and talk about their motivations for being at that meeting? If so, how could historians support any hypotheses they might make regarding past figures' motivations? Where does independent mindedness come in? How does this bear on the discussion vis a vis science?

Because of the availability of recorded evidence and the converging lines of scientific archaeological evidence, I might be willing to lend history some element of credibility, but again, how does this create an independent mind where science fails?

ETA: spelling

[drkitten]

Excuse me? You've never heard of lesbolphthalein?

My school might have been too conservative to stock that particular chemical.

Or too reallity-based. Your call....




aside: I've often wondered about the validity of the study of history. Especially in the 20th Century, photographs gained popularity. A historian looking back could examine at a photograph and say, 'these two leaders met at this meeting, here's a photo to prove it.' Is this statement about the photograph considered to be a 'fact?' Is it conjecture to then go on and talk about their motivations for being at that meeting? If so, how could historians support any hypotheses they might make regarding past figures' motivations? Where does independent mindedness come in? How does this bear on the discussion vis a vis science?

Well, in my opinion, it comes down to a question of epistemology. Historians -- or at least, rational historians, as well as their cousins in archeology, anthropology, sociology, and so forth -- at least in theory recognize the existence of an accessible "ground truth" that transcends interpretation. The existence of the photo is an unassailable ground truth; no one in possession of their senses could hold the photo in his hand and simultaneously deny its existence. We can argue (briefly) about the validity of the photo (I can show you a photograph of Tom Hanks with JFK, but that doesn't prove much), but if we accept its validity, then it's a witness to the truth of its contents. We can similarly look at documentary evidence -- what the world leaders wrote and said about that meeting -- to try to infer what was going on inside their heads. And if we find ourselves in disagreement, we can look for more evidence, for example, other as-yet unanalyzed documents.

From a practical standpoint, however, it's very difficult to teach this subject this way because the documents and evidence aren't widely available. I can buy phenolphthalein almost anywhere, but I can't get access to Stalin's papers outside of the Russian archive where they're kept. So it's hard to teach the habits of inquiry when the students can't actually practice on anything.

However, these problems pale in comparison to the issues in the humanities. There is no such thing as a "ground truth" in literature beyond the text we all share, so we have no way to distinguish between competing interpretations. If I think that Jay Gatsby was black (http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/08/09/gatsby/index.html), there's literally nothing to bear on the question beyond the simple absurdity of the idea. But that's not inquiry....


"It's the literary equivalent of the Rorschach blots. People just want to read into classics something original and new and totally divorced from the authors' intentions," says Charles Scribner III of Thompson's idea. His family's firm, Charles Scribner's Sons, was Fitzgerald's publisher. "I mean, it's ridiculous. There's nothing in Fitzgerald's documentation, in the drafts, in his letters back and forth to the editor, Max Perkins, that would give any credence to such an interpretation of 'The Great Gatsby.'"

Scribner, an editor at the Scribner imprint of Simon & Schuster, nevertheless sees an upside to the notion. "I suppose if it entices people to read this classic, it's all for the best. Look, this is bad history but it's not bad pedagogy. He can use the analogy to approach some of the themes of 'Gatsby' -- of the outsider trying to be an insider, of the self-invented man. But please don't claim that Fitzgerald intended this as the factual basis of his book."


"It may get the chap tenure, and it may get him a promotion," says Bruccoli, who is Jefferies professor of English at the University of South Carolina. "Anybody in academia trying to get ahead deserves sympathy. It's a mug's game, an occupation in which the odds are against the people engaged in it. His idea is absurd, but I don't want to take the bread out of someone's mouth."

[DreadNiK]

Speaking as a humanities undergraduate I would say that the humanities give more room for independant thought, but along with that it they give huge amounts of room for independant B.S. or just plain incorrectness, along with often not actually having an 'answer' or proper theory, while science at an undergraduate level might be more prescriptive and give less room for independant work, it has 'right' answers and proper theories, and later on, if you get the chance to come up with something new, you can be 'right', whereas in the humanities, it seems far too open for debate for my liking.

Too often blatant contradictions to 'theories' are ignored as 'exceptions', for example, or no answer of any value is arrived at, instead you just get a bunch of knowledgable people talking about something.

[coberst]

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.
Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles.

Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using only deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning requires the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation, we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.

The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.

Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents.

There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.
Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.

[drkitten]

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Yes, yes. We've all read Kuhn. Some of us even understood him and not the later misrepresentations that he himself felt it necessary to distance him from.



There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems.

There is indeed. The logic of technical problems is independently verifiable and can be demonstrated to a student. In broad terms, it exists.

The "logic" of dialectical problems, on the other hand, is nothing of the sort. It cannot be independently demonstrated because it requires not just an agreement on the scientific methodolgy to be employed but on the very existence of the evidence. It accepts everything precisely because it excludes nothing -- by "slip[ping] quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning," it excludes the very possibility of genuine reasoning, and by accepting any offhand nonsense as a "synthesis of one point of view with another," it precludes any genuine vision or insight. When you "think" dialectically you are guided neither by procedures, nor principles, but by an emotional attachment to the conclusions.

And you end up with questions like "was Jay Gatsby black," where the problemitization of the problem specifically denies any possibility of solution, or indeed of a logical approach to the solution. The idea that a point of view must be included in a synthesis, or that a contradictory point of view must be accepted and "slipped between" excludes the process of genuine intellectual analysis and specifically prevents independence of mind. You are not "independent" if you are forced to accept what someone else tells you, irresepective of its demonstrable intellectual flaws.

The key, as before, is epistemology. If you don't like what "science" has to say about a particular issue, you can always (in theory) run the experiment yourself and see if the data are actually accurate. If your data contradict theirs, there is no need to "synthesize" them.

[Bruno Putzeys]

I'm a bit late in this thread. My sentiment runs parallel to coberst's.

At school, science is taught as a whole bunch of facts that you just have to accept. There is never a single word about the scientific method. When you've been taught science like that, you're equally ready to see homeopathy as just another fact to accept along with the rest.

Indeed, the value most sought in children is readiness to accept. This is not a philosophical matter, it is a biological truth. Babies who don't eat what their parents do and who do eat what their parents don't, are quickly removed from the gene pool. We are preprogrammed for uncritical acceptance during the first years of our lives. I surmise that schools are organised the way they are because they have historically been linearly extrapolated from kindergarten.

It will take a lot of independent thought from educators before they realise that after having learned not to eat off the floor, children really need a radically different educational diet if they are to acquire the skills we so value in adults.

[Jimbo07]

At school, science is taught as a whole bunch of facts that you just have to accept...

Okay, I have to back up for a moment. What are we debating?

The structure of a child's education?
The value of humanities courses at the undergraduate level?
History is better than science?

I'm guilty due to my original high school edit. What's being discussed?

I agree that too often science is taught as a grab-bag of facts, especially before the undergraduate level. However, I don't think this automatically makes humanities students better 'multi-dimensional' thinkers. :boggled:

[drkitten]

At school, science is taught as a whole bunch of facts that you just have to accept. There is never a single word about the scientific method. When you've been taught science like that, you're equally ready to see homeopathy as just another fact to accept along with the rest.


I'm almost afraid to ask, but,.... where did you attend school?

Because the scientific education you describe would not be acceptable in most areas. The National Academies Press (http://newton.nap.edu/html/nses/6d.html), for example, describes as part of its US-based science curriculum that


Students in grades 5-8 should be provided opportunities to engage in full and in partial inquiries. In a full inquiry students begin with a question, design an investigation, gather evidence, formulate an answer to the original question, and communicate the investigative process and results. In partial inquiries, they develop abilities and understanding of selected aspects of the inquiry process. Students might, for instance, describe how they would design an investigation, develop explanations based on scientific information and evidence provided through a classroom activity, or recognize and analyze several alternative explanations for a natural phenomenon presented in a teacher-led demonstration.

Students in grades 5-8 can begin to recognize the relationship between explanation and evidence. They can understand that background knowledge and theories guide the design of investigations, the types of observations made, and the interpretations of data. In turn, the experiments and investigations students conduct become experiences that shape and modify their background knowledge.

Similarly, even the state of Kansas (not exactly known for being on the forefront of progressive science education) specifically abjures the "bag of facts" method of teaching you describe above. As a simple example, their education standards (http://www.kcfs.org/KsSciSt1999-2001/Standards/2001-draft6.html) demand that all fourth graders "will develop the skills necessary to do full inquiry. Inquiry involves asking a simple question, completing an investigation, answering the question, and sharing the results with others," including "Ask questions that they can answer by investigating," "Plan and conduct a simple investigation," and "Begin developing the abilities to communicate, critique, analyze their own investigations, and interpret the work of other students."

Indeed, this is one of the epistemological strengths of science, that students can perform genuine investigations of their own. As an example, KS recommends as sample "simple investigation" that students might "Design a test of the wet strength of paper towels; experiment with plant growth; experiment to find ways to prevent soil erosion." Anyone, in any class anywhere in the world can test the wet strength of paper towels, where they can't necessarily do historical investigations....

Kansas isn't alone. Here are (some of) the fourth grade standards from Wisconsin (http://dpi.wi.gov/standards/scic4.html):


By the end of grade four, students will:

C.4.1 Use the vocabulary of the unifying themes to ask questions about objects, organisms, and events being studied

C.4.2 Use the science content being learned to ask questions, plan investigations, make observations, make predictions, and offer explanations

C.4.3 Select multiple sources of information to help answer questions selected for classroom investigations

C.4.4 Use simple science equipment safely and effectively, including rulers, balances, graduated cylinders, hand lenses, thermometers, and computers, to collect data relevant to questions and investigations

C.4.5 Use data they have collected to develop explanations and answer questions generated by investigations

C.4.6 Communicate the results of their investigations in ways their audiences will understand by using charts, graphs, drawings, written descriptions, and various other means, to display their answers

C.4.7 Support their conclusions with logical arguments

C.4.8 Ask additional questions that might help focus or further an investigation


South Carolina (http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/cso/standards/science/) demands that 4th-grade students "1. Plan and conduct a simple investigation. a). Ask a question about objects, organisms, and events in the environment. b) Plan and conduct a simple investigation that represents a fair test. c) Select and use appropriate equipment and tools to gather data and extend the senses d) Use data to construct a reasonable explanation e) Communicate investigations and explanations."

It gets tedious to copy these citations. Idaho, Oregon, Missouri, Illinois, and Nebraska all have similar concepts and language (at the 4th grade level, even) -- and that's when I got tired of looking. None of these states that I mentioned are especially at the forefront of science education, either.

So I guess my take-home summary is : no, that's not how science is taught at school.

[Jimbo07]

It gets tedious to copy these citations. Idaho, Oregon, Missouri, Illinois, and Nebraska all have similar concepts and language (at the 4th grade level, even) -- and that's when I got tired of looking. None of these states that I mentioned are especially at the forefront of science education, either.


I think, drkitten, that a position statement does not translate into action, especially in districts where the resources of qualified teachers and money are limited.

We had some great science teachers and some very poor ones. If the poor teachers taught science, that may be what students remembered. I suspect everyone here who has been saying that, 'science is taught as a pile of facts,' is thinking of similar childhood experiences to mine.

My evidence is anecdotal, so we have to give your citations the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

[Almo]

Real life problems cannot be solved using only deductive and inductive reasoning.

This generalization is too far-reaching to be true.

[Bruno Putzeys]

@drkitten, I was taught in a catholic school in Belgium.

I recently had a discussion with my dad about this exact same issue and he said that the bag of facts style of teaching was introduced here in the early '60s in an attempt to "speed up teaching", under the assumption that something as abstract as the scientific method would not be needed by most in daily practice.

sigh.

If science classes in the US are anything like the standards quoted above, that's one area where education in the US has got a leg-up on Europe.

It begs the question why I'm not seeing a commensurate gap in scientific literacy between american and european adults. The prevalence of religion in the US would nearly suggest an opposite trend.

[coberst]

My main point that I would like to accentuate is that our student days have prepared us to get a job but has not prepared us to be adult learners. Schooling has not prepared us to be independent self-learning adults.

The world badly needs adults who can face reality with the ability to reason in a way that they have not generally been taught to do. The great thing that is missing in our culture is adult learners with the ability to formulate questions and to find the answers to the questions formulated.

Adults have closed down their minds to learning when their schooling ended. I do not propose that adults go back to some kind of school I am proposing that adults take up the role of teacher and pupil. I am proposing that adults open up their minds to the fact that the world can no longer afford for us to ignore our intellectual responsibilities.

[coberst]

Almo


I suspect that most of us are willing to agree that, broadly speaking, we have ‘fact knowledge’ and ‘relationship knowledge’. I would like to take this a step further by saying that I wish to claim that fact knowledge is mono-logical and relationship knowledge is multi-logical.

Mono-logical matters have one set of principles guiding their solution; this set of principles is often (if not always) the ‘scientific method’. Often these mono-logical matters have a paradigm--The natural sciences—normal sciences—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” move forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

Multi-logical problems are different in kind from mono-logical matters.

Socratic dialogue is one technique for attempting to grapple with multi-logical problems; problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multi-logical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-logical.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.

When we are dealing with mono-logical problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-logical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.

Our society is very good while dealing with mono-logical problems. Our society is terrible while dealing with multi-logical problems.

Do you not think that we desperately need to understand CT, which attempts to help us understand how to think about multi-logical problems? Do you not think that it is worth while for every adult to get up off their ‘intellectual couch’ and teach themselves CT?

[Bruno Putzeys]

I agree but I'm afraid I can't add much significant to it.

The complexity of any real-world situation seems to offer, to the uncritical thinker, loads of places to throw fuzzy ideas in. To the critical thinker it is clear that there are no such openings, but this realisation takes a lot of thought - not to mention some intellectual firepower.

I'm reminded of typical perpetuum mobile ideas. Most are simply a string of mechanical operations so complex the "inventor" loses track. Apparently the inventor hopes the laws of physics will do likewise. In argumenting the operation of his device he will certainly argue on that basis.