Reading — 2026 Jan–Apr Recall Set 36

A 16th and 17th centuries saw two great pioneers of modern science: Galileo and Gilbert. The impact of their findings is eminent. Gilbert was the first modern scientist, also the accredited father of the science of electricity and magnetism, an Englishman of learning and a physician at the court of Elizabeth. Prior to him, all that was known of electricity and magnetism was what the ancients knew, nothing more than that the lodestone possessed magnetic properties and that amber and jet, when rubbed, would attract bits of paper or other substances of small specific gravity. However, he is less well-known than he deserves. Gilbert’s birth predated Galileo. Born in an eminent local family in Colchester county in the UK, on May 24, 1544, he went to grammar school, and then studied medicine at St. John’s College, Cambridge, graduating in 1573. Later he traveled in the continent and eventually settled down in London. He was a very successful and eminent doctor. All this culminated in his election to the president of the Royal Science Society. He was also appointed the personal physician to the Queen (Elizabeth I), and later knighted by the Queen. He faithfully served her until her death. However, he didn’t outlive the Queen for long and died on December 10, 1603, only a few months after his appointment as personal physician to King James. Gilbert was first interested in chemistry but later changed his focus due to the large portion of mysticism of alchemy involved (such as the transmutation of metal). He gradually developed his interest in physics after the great minds of the ancient, particularly about the knowledge the ancient Greeks had about lodestones, strange minerals with the power to attract iron. In the meantime, Britain became a major seafaring nation in 1588 when the Spanish Armada was defeated, opening the way to British settlement of America. British ships depended on the magnetic compass, yet no one understood why it worked. Did the pole star attract it, as Columbus once speculated; or was there a magnetic mountain at the pole, as described in Odyssey, which ships would never approach, because the sailors thought its pull would yank out all their iron nails and fittings? For nearly 20 years William Gilbert conducted ingenious experiments to understand magnetism. His works include On the Magnet and Magnetic Bodies, Great Magnet of the Earth. Gilbert's discovery was so important to modern physics. He investigated the nature of magnetism and electricity. He even coined the word “electric”. Though the early beliefs of magnetism were also largely entangled with superstitions such as that rubbing garlic on lodestone can neutralize its magnetism, one example being that sailors even believed the smell of garlic would even interfere with the action of compass, which is why helmsmen were forbidden to eat it near a ship’s compass. Gilbert also found that metals can be magnetized by rubbing materials such as fur, plastic or the like on them. He named the ends of a magnet “north pole” and “south pole”. The magnetic poles can attract or repel, depending on polarity. In addition, however, ordinary iron is always attracted to a magnet. Though he started to study the relationship between magnetism and electricity, sadly he didn’t complete it. His research of static electricity using amber and jet only demonstrated that objects with electrical charges can work like magnets attracting small pieces of paper and stuff. It is a French guy named du Fay that discovered that there are actually two electrical charges, positive and negative. He also questioned the traditional astronomical beliefs. Though a Copernican, he didn’t express in his quintessential beliefs whether the earth is at the center of the universe or in orbit around the sun. However he believed that stars are not equidistant from the earth, but have their own earth-like planets orbiting around them. The earth is itself like a giant magnet, which is also why compasses always point north. They spin on an axis that is aligned with the earth’s polarity. He even likened the polarity of the magnet to the polarity of the earth and built an entire magnetic philosophy on this analogy. In his explanation, magnetism was the soul of the earth. Thus a perfectly spherical lodestone, when aligned with the earth’s poles, would wobble all by itself in 24 hours. Further, he also believed that suns and other stars wobble just like the earth does around a crystal core, and speculated that the moon might also be a magnet caused to orbit by its magnetic attraction to the earth. This was perhaps the first proposal that a force might cause a heavenly orbit. His research method was revolutionary in that he used experiments rather than pure logic and reasoning like the ancient Greek philosophers did. It was a new attitude toward scientific investigation. Until then, scientific experiments were not in fashion. It was because of this scientific attitude, together with his contribution to our knowledge of magnetism, that a unit of magneto motive force, also known as magnetic potential, was named Gilbert in his honor. His approach of careful observation and experimentation rather than the authoritative opinion or deductive philosophy of others had laid the very foundation for modern science.

A leading researcher has proposed that the key to understanding the origin of music is in the playful language used between mother and child. A In a recent lecture Richard Parncutt, a professor of systematic musicology at the University of Graz, Austria, discussed the idea that music originated from 'motherese' - the playful voices mothers adopt when speaking to infants and toddlers. According to the theory, evolutionary growth in human brain size between one and two million years ago led to earlier births, more fragile infants, and a vital need for stronger bonds between mothers and their newborns. According to Parncutt, 'motherese' arose as a way to strengthen this maternal bond and to help infants survive. 'If babies were born earlier, it is clear they would need better care in order to survive... this would involve the baby communicating its state and needs more clearly to the mother,' he says. Parncutt adds that this makes it very likely that motherese developed as an evolutionary adaptation, and that there is a large body of contemporary empirical evidence supporting the musical characteristics of motherese. B Although it might appear amusing - or even nonsensical - at first glance, 'motherese' is actually a complex and refined form of communication. It contains structural musical elements such as rhythm and melody, and codes that babies and mothers understand. It also contains cross-cultural similarities with regard to the physical gestures and movements it incorporates - an important consideration when examining the origin of music. 'The sonic-gestural vocabulary conveys to both mother and infant information about the present physical and emotional condition of each, along with the current nature of interaction between them,' states Parncutt. 'Here, emotions such as surprise and disappointment are learned for the first time in a social and musical context. It is about survival in that it motivates the mother to care for the infant and gives her information about the infant's needs.' For example, mothers can understand when their babies are tired or hungry. Motherese also helps infants to acquire language. C Parncutt explains that a fetus begins hearing nearly four months before birth, as it regularly hears its mother's voice, heartbeat, and digestive sounds - all of which provide information about its mother's emotional state. After birth, the baby recognises these sound patterns and its mother's correlating mood. Gary McPherson, head of the University of Melbourne's School of Music, reiterates the importance of this prenatal association, saying that music is the very first form of intelligence to reveal itself - even before birth. D However, there are several competing theories about the origins of music. Parncutt developed a grading system to assess these theories, the objective being to measure their validity against a set of criteria which he called 'universal aspects of music'. Some theories suggest music originated as a form of sexual selection, similar to a peacock's tail, used to attract mates. Others propose it evolved to enhance social cohesion and cooperation within larger groups, or that it was a byproduct of other evolutionary adaptations with no specific survival purpose of its own. Parncutt's system graded each theory based on its ability to explain music’s emotional power, its presence in all known cultures, and its apparent lack of a direct survival function compared to language. E When evaluated against these criteria, Parncutt argues that the motherese theory provides the most comprehensive explanation. It accounts for the deep emotional connection inherent in music by linking it to the primal bond between mother and child. Furthermore, because caregiving for infants is a human universal, the theory naturally explains why music is found in all cultures around the world. The playful, non-utilitarian nature of motherese also mirrors the aesthetic and seemingly non-functional aspects of music itself, addressing the question of why music exists beyond strict survival needs.

Forty years ago, the research psychologist Dr. Paul Ekman was addressing a group of young psychiatrists in training when he was asked a question, the answer to which has kept him busy ever since. Suppose the group wanted to know: a particular patient swears they are telling the truth. They look and sound sincere. So here is the question: is there any way you can be sure they are telling the truth? Ekman did not know the answer then but wanted to find out. As part of his research, he had already filmed a series of 12-minute interviews with psychiatric patients. In a subsequent conversation, one of the patients said that he had lied to him. So, Ekman sat and looked at the film but saw nothing noteworthy. Then he slowed it down and looked again. Then he slowed it even further. And suddenly, there, across just two frames of the film, he saw it: an intense expression of extreme anguish. It lasted less than a 15th of a second, but once he had spotted the first expression, he soon found three more examples in that same interview. He termed his discovery "micro-expression": very rapid intense demonstrations of emotion that the subject intended to be concealed. Over the course of the next four decades, Ekman successfully demonstrated a proposition first suggested by Charles Darwin: that the ways in which we express disgust, contempt, fear, surprise, happiness, and sadness are universal. The facial muscles triggered by those seven basic emotions are, he has shown, essentially standard, regardless of language and culture, from the US to Japan and Brazil to Papua New Guinea. What is more, expressions of emotion are impossible to suppress and, particularly when we are lying, micro-expressions of powerfully felt emotions will inevitably flit across our face before we get the chance to stop them. Fortunately for liars, most people will fail to spot these fleeting signals of inner torment. Of the 15,000 Ekman has tested, only 50 people, whom he calls "naturals," have been able to do it. But given a little more training, Ekman says, almost anyone can develop the skill. He should know, since these tests were completed in the mid-1980s and the first publication of his research, he has been called in by the FBI and CIA (among countless more law enforcement and other agencies around the world), not just to solve cases, but to teach them how to use his techniques for themselves. He has held workshops for defense and prosecution lawyers, health professionals, even jealous spouses, all of them wanting to know exactly when someone is not being 100 per cent candid. Most recently, Ekman’s research has featured in a new television series about the exploits of the fictional Dr. Cal Lightman, a scientist who studies involuntary body language to discover not only if you are lying but why you might have been motivated to do so. According to the publicity blurb, Lightman is a human lie detector, even more accurate than a polygraph test. Ekman concedes he was skeptical when the producer first approached him with the idea of turning his life’s work into a TV series, and initially would have stopped the project if he could. In particular, he was fearful that the show would exaggerate the effectiveness of his techniques and create the quite inaccurate impression among audiences that criminals could no longer hope to get away with lying. In the worst-case scenario, he was concerned about unfair convictions, that one day someone not properly trained in his techniques might be sitting on a jury and wrongly find someone guilty of a crime simply on the basis of a television programme. In the end, though, he was won over because the series is unusual in several respects. It is the first time, as far as Ekman is aware, that a commercial TV drama has been based on the work of just one scientist. That scientist is also deeply involved in the project, talking through plot ideas and checking five successive drafts of each script to ensure details are correct. He was also impressed with the producer’s manifestly serious and well-intentioned reasons for making the programme. Now that the first series has been completed, he believes probably 80-90 per cent of the show is based on fact and that’s good enough for what it is. After all, a drama, not a documentary. Ekman, incidentally, professes to have been a terrible liar ever since he was a small boy and observes that the ability to detect a lie and the ability to lie successfully are completely unrelated. He has been asked by people running for high office if he could teach them to become more credible with the public but has always refused to use his skills in that way on ethical grounds. He also insists that there are various kinds of lies. A "true" lie can be identified by having two essential characteristics: there must be a deliberate intent to mislead and there must be no notification that this is what is occurring. This means that an actor or a poker player isn’t a true liar. They are supposed to deceive you, it’s part of the game, and the same is true of flattery. He prefers to focus on the kinds of lies where the liar would be on grave trouble if they were found out and where the target would feel properly aggrieved if they knew.