Chapter 1. An Causebonding

James Planck is the student everyone is keeping an eye on, he is Seventeen-years-old and he just received a perfect score on the Certified Advancement Exam for the Gifted and Talented. Now he is in my small classroom at Harvard for Graduates of Science Education, “Best Practices for Teaching Physics.” 

“My name is Yu. Kindhart, and the first lecture of the Fall 2017 semester begins now.” 

It’s 8:14 AM, Planck is noticeably aware while gentle-finger-flipping with his pencil without-fail, and with a look of eagerness on his face. You can expect him to raise his hand, at-any-point, first.

“Class, the only way for a subject to be fascinating to the world of science, to be ‘certain,’ is for it to be ‘proven’—Yes, or No?”

The professor guessed correctly that his star pupal would respond, fastest. “Planck—” says Kindhart.

“Fascinations can make us work harder, as if determined to find ‘the point.’ A personal ‘why’ that brings us more clarity to an interesting debate.” 

Another student chimed in, “It’s either lost in the ‘philosophy’ or discovered in the ‘scientific examination.’ What’s fascination if it doesn’t get taken farther by the ‘daylight of inquiry?’ A never-finished first draft?” 

Kindhart likes the atmosphere. “We do find it advantageous to know who, or what, I should say, to invite into our spheres. You can see it first-and-foremost from Aristotle’s domain-specific edifice, resulting in what determined a geocentric universe, then secular norm. Not kind to the renaissance thinkers who ‘sort of’ pieced it together; you are sure of the results that show a consistent pattern, indicative, I suppose, it would depend on how similar the subspace to the Natural system in question – to add for a fascinatingly ‘P’ lure.”

“Going back to your original question,” “–No, the planets, Planck!” The entire class chuckled at the same time, yet it was candid to have such a class full of bright minds, “The daylight of inquiry, help me understand.”

“Ok!” Planck is ready to ring the ‘alarum’ that Kindhart knew with satisfaction someone clever enough would, passing his inter-level intro quiz.

“BTW, it’s James a.k.a ‘Jay’ Planck,” his voicing is that of a ‘soring eagle’:

“–proven, professor, could mean literally anything: True-or-False, both True-and-False,” Planck continues in a voicing thought to be of the mindset driving an ‘ambivalent rant’, “Yet, the ‘reasons’ you used to transition to an ‘interpretation’ make this wholesome. The world over, ‘scientific inquiry’ is routine, and the ‘sensationalism’ it registers as ‘downstream newsmedia’ is ‘endless’, but those ‘fascinated by natural phenomonen’, so retracted, in view of what it means, when the ‘loss of an argument’ to a ‘pseudoscientific discision model’ makes interpreting from ‘any mindful-mention’ of the Wisdom founded on ‘invalid terms’, now ‘commonplace’. The translation is lost on those of ‘passionate’ ideas.”

The words of the Seventeen-years-old hit home to the entire Harvard audience, over a genuine causebonding. The auditor is moved, seated in the back of the room, but doesn’t say anything.

“–oh my, one finds a ‘higher calling’ to assist a large-scale societial framework–I see your point. To ‘question’, to ‘need’ the answer, to ‘become’ this visionary–I wish to express to the class now that I have made science out to fix other subjects.”

“Moreover, to draw on a hypothesis, which data has all but ‘resolved’ and claims, based on ’empiricism’, to demonstrate the existence of ‘supreme certainty’ founded on facts – like you said, a world over. Don’t let this shock anyone, ‘many interpretations’ of the same subject matter are what give us a ‘why’ from its constituents, all ‘actors’ with intellectual freedom in discourse, committing to travel by honest path, leading the world of science to scientific integrity.’”

The class didn’t hesitate, they started to think. Jay, however, had a powerful realization: “This chain of motivational ‘idea flow’ served, for me, as a ‘forcing function’ of individuals. The ideas come from a place I care about, but I can not narrow the ‘cosom’ in the sequence of innovators in their many specialized subfields. It ‘guarantees’ what it reprofiles, our discipline of ‘general inquiry’ to an ‘infinite cycling’ of differences.”

Professor Kindhart has a mastermind like grin on his face. “It really is the yin to ‘understand reasons’ answering to a yang that ‘challenges the nature of a context.’” Giving everyone a moment to look at the time, “Trust me, it’s not lost in the fun house to frame ‘logical flow’ as an ‘Art.’”

“I’ll admit–your’s is good enough, Jay.” 

The discussion could go in any direction at this point. The class was silent for a few seconds, then more aplause was acclaimed, Professor Kindhart closed with: “I’ll see you all next time,” maintaining his train of thought, but just barely.