May 03 2009
Looking Behind Fancy Words
Thanks to a ScienceDaily news release posted a couple days ago, I was pointed in the direction of the work of a vanguard engineer. Or maybe a crank. Or maybe some of both. The researcher in question, Adrian Bejan, is working to unify “the animate and the inanimate designs of nature.” [source] Ambitious. Crazy?
The first red flag I encountered (that the vanguard in question my also be something of a crank–a person who makes grandiose claims and lives in his own universe to a significant degree) was the lack of scientific data in the news release. It was all so theoretical. And vague. And then came this paragraph:
In numerous papers over past decade, Bejan has demonstrated that the constructal law predicts the design of a wide range of flow systems seen in nature, from biology and geophysics to social dynamics and technology evolution.
Jargon alert: constructal law . . . flow systems . . . social dynamics. The news release also contained a link to the author’s website, http://www.constructal.org. Hmm.
From the website I read about Bejan’s theory. In a “nutshell” it seems to be:
Constructal theory is this mental viewing:
(i) The generation of design (configuration, pattern, geometry) in nature is a physics phenomenon that unites all animate and inanimate systems, and
(ii) This phenomenon is covered by the Constructal Law: “For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it provides easier and easier to its currents.” (Bejan, 1996)
Is there any “meat” within that nutshell? Or is it all theoretical deadwood? I don’t know. My sense, is however, that this researcher is in the habit of playing fast and loose with language to trump up his ideas. Maybe not. But maybe.
As a final thought: when vague and extremely inclusive words are used, it makes them very difficult to falsify. And that runs counter to the spirit of science.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for looking into this physics law of design in nature. Fair enough. The way to answer your own question is by reading what is being written in this growing field ofv research. These are peer-refereed journal articles and books, hard fought en route to print. To which I would add that it is extremely difficult for an engineer to publish in biology and physics journals.
In particular, if you will look on http://www.constructal.org at articles 4 and 37 counting downward, you will find two long review articles of the field, from 2009 and 2006. These display the hard facts, tested by many, in hundreads of references.
If you cannot download these articles, I will be happy to send them to you, but I will need your email address.
I know why your first encounter with the constructal law strikes you as “vague and extremely inclusive words”. That is the nature of a statement that is a “law” of physics. A law covers all phenomena of a certain kind, no matter what scenario, in this case all phenomena of generation and evolution of configuration, across the board..
Think of the law gravitational fall : every thing has weight, rocks and rats, for the same one reason. Now, with the constructal law I think that every flowing thing generates configuration, rivers and rats, for their own single reason. Why am I wrong to think this way?
Adrian
Thank you, Adrian, for the feedback. I will take a look at the information you mentioned.
Even if wrong–partly or fully (and who hasn’t been wrong about something?)–innovative individuals play an immensely important role in modern society.