| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2004 11:04:17 AM |
| Object: |
For fun: What is science? |
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
.
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 06:10:43 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0401080904.d33596e@posting.google.com...
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
(This post may soon have some relevance to the progress I'm making in
other threads).
I'm not given to using second hand definitions. :)
Science has to do with Nature, and (being polite) there is a great
diversity
of views- -expressions of Nature around here. So, many definitions of
science express- -emerge.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 12:33:29 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" wrote:
: I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
: Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
: experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
: defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
:
: How about a little poll on this.
:
: In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
: means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
: by.
Falsifiability is too philosophically ambiguous. There are too many logical
manipulations applicable to an axiom set which nearly always cause an
observable to fail to falsify over a proposition even when the predictions
mismatch. This is where Popper never could complete his programme, and has
been harped to death in the philosophy of science circles.
However, contra Kuhn, the progressions of science do seem to be comparable.
There does seem to be a valid metric of advancement.
One of the most successful attempts at combining these two observations in
my eyes has been model theory. It has been well developed in several
mathematical forms over several centuries now, and with the advent of
information theory and model correlation metrics, I think we are beginning
to understand what science really is.
It is an extension of linguistics. It is the abstraction of our
epistemology into mutually agreed objects, and the construction of models
that describe an ontology and process. Scientific researche programmes hold
as central a given collection of models. Those models derive predictions,
and the collection of predictions from several models form a poset under the
relationship that compares epistemological correlates. Like any finite
poset, there may be one or more than one maximal elements. Usually however,
models have a well defined domain of applicability, and there is usually
only a small number of models that stand as maximal elements in any given
domain.
These we use as tools. The better we can predict, the more useful things we
can accomplish. In this way, science is very much the culminating
demonstration of the usefulness of language and symbolics.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Haugsand" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
13 Jan 2004 05:48:21 AM |
|
|
* Mike Helland
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
The most successful model of reality where reality is explained and
its behaviour can be predicted.
(Ruling out religion as to "prediction", and pure chance as to "most
successful". Also ruling out politics as to "explained".)
--
Jon Haugsand
Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:jonhaug@ifi.uio.no
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Phone: +47 22 95 21 52
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
10 Jan 2004 05:39:05 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0401080904.d33596e@posting.google.com>...
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is self-critical blinking performed by accoutants on
Friday afternoons.
Philosophy is self-critical winking performed by
paper shufflers who can only manage true-false tests (Popper ibid).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
10 Jan 2004 05:39:21 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0401080904.d33596e@posting.google.com>...
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is self-critical blinking performed by accoutants on
Friday afternoons.
Philosophy is self-critical winking performed by
paper shufflers who can only manage true-false tests (Popper ibid).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
10 Jan 2004 05:39:44 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0401080904.d33596e@posting.google.com>...
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is self-critical blinking performed by accoutants on
Friday afternoons.
Philosophy is self-critical winking performed by
paper shufflers who can only manage true-false tests (Popper ibid).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leroy Quet" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
09 Jan 2004 08:08:41 PM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0401080904.d33596e@posting.google.com>...
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is the branch of philosophy dealing with attempting to
determine truth via experimental means,...
with the ultimate goal of achieving some kind of (imprecise)
certainty,...
but finally discovering that the Whole Mess is based upon UNCERTAINTY
in the end...
Science: the branch of art/religion/mathematics(/politics) dealing
with that seen *outside* what is known to our own inner-eyes, even if
our inner-eyes are what actually have been seeing it all, and perhaps
with a tad bit of hallucination yet still...
thanks,
Leroy Quet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 07:52:17 PM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Nature explained.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
09 Jan 2004 06:17:36 AM |
|
|
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:972svv85c9hm1pi2aringq6gt75nvn7h6j@4ax.com...
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Nature explained.
The process of creating a sparse dictionary
whose nouns (Things) and verbs (Causes and effects)
have the highest correlation with observations.
The same is also true of philosophy,
but science assigns greater value to externalized correlations, whereas
philosophy assigns greater value to internalized correlations.
Science = it is reality.
Philosophy = I am reality.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
09 Jan 2004 08:19:22 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Science = it is reality.
And objective proposition. One can check.
Philosophy = I am reality.
A subjective illusion. Right up there with "I am Napoleon". Bishop
Berkeley would have approved.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
12 Jan 2004 11:06:29 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:KLyLb.6301$sv6.18572@attbi_s52...
Tom Potter wrote:
Science = it is reality.
And objective proposition. One can check.
Philosophy = I am reality.
A subjective illusion. Right up there with "I am Napoleon". Bishop
All perceptions,
including perceptions of a possible external (It is reality) world,
start, and end, from "I".
Can you suggest a bullet-proof experiment
that proves that an external reality exists?
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
12 Jan 2004 11:12:41 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Can you suggest a bullet-proof experiment
that proves that an external reality exists?
Not a chance. Radical solopsism is internally consistent.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
13 Jan 2004 05:28:33 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<d7LMb.39556$I06.264201@attbi_s01>...
Tom Potter wrote:
Science = it is reality.
And objective proposition. One can check.
Philosophy = I am reality.
A subjective illusion. Right up there with "I am Napoleon". Bishop
All perceptions,
including perceptions of a possible external (It is reality) world,
start, and end, from "I".
Can you suggest a bullet-proof experiment
that proves that an external reality exists?
Tom Potter wrote:
Can you suggest a bullet-proof experiment
that proves that an external reality exists?
Not a chance. Radical solopsism is internally consistent.
So what you are saying is that physics is:
"A subjective illusion. Right up there with "I am Napoleon"."
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
09 Jan 2004 09:02:09 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<KLyLb.6301$sv6.18572@attbi_s52>...
Tom Potter wrote:
Science = it is reality.
And objective proposition. One can check.
Philosophy = I am reality.
A subjective illusion. Right up there with "I am Napoleon". Bishop
Berkeley would have approved.
Bob Kolker
Maybe Bob Kolker or someone
can suggest an experiment,
that would definitely
prove that no sentient objects exist,
and or if they do exist,
that they are just observers,
and have no affect on causes and effects.
No doubt, above a certain pleasure/pain threshhold,
I am just a reacting object,
but sometimes, I think that a little sentitence
comes into play, and I am a little butterfly,
that causes a few ripples in space/time,
that would not otherwise exist.
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Would Karl Popper agree ? |
08 Jan 2004 04:08:55 PM |
|
|
Hi Mike Helland , Re: Karl Popper ,
You ask ,
" In one or two paragraphs in your own words ,
describe what science means to you , and if possible
from whom your definition is influenced by "
Science is about expanding the limits or our knowledge .
Everything in science begins with an assumption .
Assumptions are like tools ,
a set of occasionally appropriate " Faiths " .
( Would Karl Popper agree ? I don't know . )
Here are some ideas that influenced me :
_ Godel's incompleteness theorems .
_ Heisenberg's uncertainty principle .
_ Einstein's spatial time .
( i.e. A fixed , yet imperfectly known future )
_ J.S. Bell's definition of the word " Measurement " .
_ Hawking's " Universe in a nutshell " .
Where he uses a static / bumpy space-time membrane
that is warped by a fifth spatial dimension .
Where that dimension might be called cosmic time
or relativistic mass , but I call it the heatscape ,
because it's like energy ,
including heat ... i.e. Notionally random energy .
P.S. Re: The heatscape ,
This dimension is required to map
the accelerating expansion of our universe .
For metaphysical purposes ,
I assume that it's fundamentally a spatial dimension ,
just like I assume , for metaphysical purposes ,
that time is fundamentally spatial .
( i.e. The future is fixed but not perfectly known )
Yet for most practical purposes ,
due to our ever present lack of information ,
we can't assume that time is spatial .
For metaphysical purposes ,
I assume that cosmic time is at least
something like a fifth spatial dimension .
Perhaps it's relativistic mass , like energy or heat .
To visualize it , imagine space-time as a membrane
that is warped by relativistic mass .
Gravitational energy is then
just the flip-side of relativistic mass .
Only one is negative and the other is positive .
At scales larger than 10 ^ 10 cm ,
the universe is observed to be isotropic and homogeneous .
So they net to zero .
Stephen Hawking calls this , " The ultimate free lunch " .
And both may just be part of one cycle of inertia ,
oriented towards the notional singularity of the big bang .
Why do we " See " this notional singularity ?
I assume that it's because of notional entropy ,
( i.e. Notionally " Unavailable " heat ) .
Which is ever stretching out the fabric of space-time .
Like a small hitch in the " Normal " order of things .
So for metaphysical purposes ...
Instead of imagining something before the big bang ,
it's possible to imagine a scientist
who's scale of spacetime keeps getting smaller ,
and who's scale of heat ( or Relativistic mass )
keeps getting larger ,
the closer he might get to the big bang .
I can imagine him getting ever closer ,
but never quite reaching the beginning of the big bang .
i.e. At 10 ^ -X seconds after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches infinity .
And at 10 ^ X years after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches zero .
-- http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 12:22:25 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is mathematical modeling of observed reality constrained by
empirical falsification. Science strives for spareness of form
(heliocentrism vs. epicycles) with maximum generality (Einstein bested
Newton).
If you remove the math and the wastebasket you have philosophy. If
you remove empirical reality as swell and add threats, you have
religion.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis McCarthy" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
11 Jan 2004 02:29:07 PM |
|
|
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 27
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:22:25 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.5.243.16
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: fed1read06 1073586087 68.5.243.16 (Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:21:27 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:21:27 EST
Mike Helland wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is mathematical modeling of observed reality constrained by
empirical falsification.
Dennis: That's the typical view of mathematical physicists who seem to be
unaware in even a superficial manner of any science outside of physics. Name
the "quantitative" prediction made by Darwin's "Origin of Species" in the
nineteenth century. Just name the chapter where the prediction appears in his
book. Or name the "quantitative" prediction made by Pasteur's microorganismic
theory of disease or Linnean biological classifications or by the theories and
explanations of digestion or in the out of Africa/Muti-regional theories of
human origin or in Wilson's sociobiology/evolutionary psychology or in the
discovery of a new species of insect or in animal behaviorism or in the
multiple-drafts view of human consciousness or in Wegener's view of continental
drift etc., etc., etc. Moreover, while this description excludes all these
obvious examples of science, it includes such ancient superstitions as
Pythagoreanism or Keplerian mathematical mysticism and even numerology.
Uncle Al: Science strives for spareness of form
(heliocentrism vs. epicycles) with maximum generality (Einstein bested
Newton).
If you remove the math and the wastebasket you have philosophy.
Dennis: Like the "philosophy" of evolution, or the germ "philosophy" of disease
or the "philosophy" on origin of man, etc. ;-)
The actual definition of science:
All scentific works fall under one of three categories. A work of science is
always either 1) the effort to search for and/or record any new facts,
observations, or discoveries regarding any object(s) or any event(s) in the
universe 2) a collection, organization, description or systemization of such
facts, observations or discoveries regarding any object(s) or any event(s) in
the universe or 3) an hypothesis or theory on the material origins or material
causes (i.e. material causes generated though local interactions of objects
with non-zero mass and non-zero volume) of any object(s) or any event(s) in the
universe.
The above works nicely because it excludes all obvious examples of non-science
(astrology, numerology, Voodooism, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics, etc.) and includes all known works of science of which I am aware.
Example of the first (search and report) would include all empirical
experiments, fossil digs, telescope time, etc and any reports of the results.
In the second category we would find Linneaus's "Systema Naturae," Diderot's
"Encyclopediae," Vesalius' "De Humani Corporis Fabrica" and Newton's
"Principia." In the third category: Lucretius "De Rerum Natura," the germ
theory of disease, Huygen's "Treatise on Light," Waterston's and Maxwell's
work on the kinetic theory of gases, etc.
Some interesting points: Darwin's voyage and notes from the Beagle are an
example of category one (search and report). Darwin's "Origin of Species"
belongs to category three (theory of material causes). The equations of
quantum mechanics, and the equations and principles of general relativity are,
like Newton's Principia, an example of category two, for they are efforts to
mathematically describe and systematize through principle various events of the
universe. However, the associated *conceptions* (as opposed to the equations)
which include speculation that objects fall or orbit because of the geometry of
curving space or certain phenomena are the result of probabilistic equations or
forces from other dimensions or are caused by the inherent dual nature of
matter and light, etc. are not scientific.
Dennis McCarthy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
11 Jan 2004 02:36:36 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3FFD9FE1.12F38E75@hate.spam.net>...
Science is mathematical modeling of observed reality constrained by
empirical falsification. Science strives for spareness of form
(heliocentrism vs. epicycles) with maximum generality (Einstein bested
Newton).
So, let me get this straight.
If I present a mathematical model that:
1. demonstrates some aspect of observed reality,
2. is found to have no inconsistencies with with observation
and
3. can simplify different existing theories into a single elegant picture
then my model can be considered science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis McCarthy" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
11 Jan 2004 04:30:11 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<3FFD9FE1.12F38E75@hate.spam.net>...
Science is mathematical modeling of observed reality constrained by
empirical falsification. Science strives for spareness of form
(heliocentrism vs. epicycles) with maximum generality (Einstein bested
Newton).
Mhelland:
So, let me get this straight.
If I present a mathematical model that:
1. demonstrates some aspect of observed reality,
2. is found to have no inconsistencies with with observation
and
3. can simplify different existing theories into a single elegant picture
then my model can be considered science?
Dennis: Yes, according to the mathematical physics definitions presented you.
So you could say, the theory Allah demanded EM follow the Maxwell equations is
"scientific" because it leads to quantifiable prediction -- whereas the theory
of evolution or germ theory of disease is not "scientific" because it doesn't
readily support quantifiable predictions.
The "all science requires mathematical predictions" belief is just one of many
things that people like to repeat without thinking about it too carefully.
Dennis McCarthy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 12:30:29 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
If you remove the math and the wastebasket you have philosophy. If
you remove empirical reality as swell and add threats, you have
religion.
Not necessarily. Sometimes you have sci.physics. :-)
Regards,
George
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 11:23:26 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is the discipline of formulating quantitative conditional
predictions about the external world (in a logically consistent
fashion), which are testable by emprical means and potentially
falsifiable by adverse experimental outcomes. Scientific theories are
machines for grinding out quantitative empircially testable predictions.
If it ain't empirically testable, it ain't science. If it is not
consistent it ain't science. If it is not quantitative is ain't science.
Here is the philosophical core of this viewpoint.
0. The world is real and exists with us or without us. There is an Out
There out there.
1. All knowledge about the world is gained though our senses.
2. There are no synthetic a priori propositions (goodbye, Mr. Kant)
3. Deductive inferences are the only logically valid inferences.
4. Inductions/Abductions are good for formulating hypotheses but are
not logically valid as they may produce untrue outputs from true inputs.
5. Physical reality is probably too complicated to be encapsulated in a
compact theory that is managable and comprehensible by humans. At best
we only get a piece of what is Out There. In short there is no theory of
everything that really explains and predicts everything.
YMMV.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 04:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:emgLb.315698$_M.1818784@attbi_s54...
Mike Helland wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is the discipline of formulating quantitative conditional
predictions about the external world (in a logically consistent
fashion), which are testable by emprical means and potentially
falsifiable by adverse experimental outcomes. Scientific theories are
machines for grinding out quantitative empircially testable predictions.
If it ain't empirically testable, it ain't science. If it is not
consistent it ain't science. If it is not quantitative is ain't science.
Here is the philosophical core of this viewpoint.
0. The world is real and exists with us or without us. There is an Out
There out there.
1. All knowledge about the world is gained though our senses.
2. There are no synthetic a priori propositions (goodbye, Mr. Kant)
3. Deductive inferences are the only logically valid inferences.
4. Inductions/Abductions are good for formulating hypotheses but are
not logically valid as they may produce untrue outputs from true inputs.
5. Physical reality is probably too complicated to be encapsulated in a
compact theory that is managable and comprehensible by humans. At best
we only get a piece of what is Out There. In short there is no theory of
everything that really explains and predicts everything.
YMMV.
How refreshing to see you contributing to physics and nor politics.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis McCarthy" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
11 Jan 2004 11:00:15 AM |
|
|
<emgLb.315698$_M.1818784@attbi_s54>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.143.251
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: attbi_s54 1073582602 24.62.143.251 (Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:23:22 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:23:22 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:23:26 GMT
Mike Helland wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
Science is the discipline of formulating quantitative conditional
predictions about the external world (in a logically consistent
fashion), which are testable by emprical means and potentially
falsifiable by adverse experimental outcomes. Scientific theories are
machines for grinding out quantitative empircially testable predictions.....
If it is not quantitative is ain't science."
Dennis: That's the easily countered modern-physics view of science developed by
people who seem to be unaware of any science outside of physics. Name the
"quantitative" prediction made by Darwin's "Origin of Species" in the
nineteenth century. Just name the chapter where the prediction appears in his
book. Or name the "quantitative" prediction made by Pasteur's microorganismic
theory of disease or Linnean biological classifications or by the theories and
explanations of digestion or in the out of Africa/Muti-regional theories of
human origin or in Wilson's sociobiology/evolutionary psychology or in the
discovery of a new species of insect or in animal behaviorism or in the
multiple-drafts view of human consciousness or in Wegener's view of continental
drift etc., etc., etc. Moreover, while this description excludes all these
obvious examples of science, it includes such ancient superstitions as
Pythagoreanism or Keplerian mathematical mysticism and even numerology.
The actual definition:
All scentific works fall under one of three categories. A work of science is
always either 1) the effort to search for and/or record any new facts,
observations, or discoveries regarding any object(s) or any event(s) in the
universe 2) a collection, organization, description or systemization of such
facts, observations or discoveries regarding any object(s) or any event(s) in
the universe or 3) an hypothesis or theory on the material origins or material
causes (i.e. material causes generated though local interactions of objects
with non-zero mass and non-zero volume) of any object(s) or any event(s) in the
universe.
The above works nicely because it excludes all obvious examples of non-science
(astrology, numerology, Voodooism, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics, etc.) and includes all known works of science of which I am aware.
Example of the first (search and report) would include all empirical
experiments, fossil digs, telescope time, etc and any reports of the results.
In the second category we would find Linneaus's "Systema Naturae," Diderot's
"Encyclopediae," Vesalius' "De Humani Corporis Fabrica" and Newton's
"Principia." In the third category: Lucretius "De Rerum Natura," the germ
theory of disease, Huygen's "Treatise on Light," Waterston's and Maxwell's
work on the kinetic theory of gases, etc.
Some interesting points: Darwin's voyage and notes from the Beagle are an
example of category one (search and report). Darwin's "Origin of Species"
belongs to category three (theory of material causes). The equations of
quantum mechanics, and the equations and principles of general relativity are,
like Newton's Principia, an example of category two, for they are efforts to
mathematically describe and systematize through principle various events of the
universe. However, the associated *conceptions* (as opposed to the equations)
which include speculation that objects fall or orbit because of the geometry of
curving space or certain phenomena are the result of probabilistic equations or
forces from other dimensions or are caused by the inherent dual nature of
matter and light, etc. are not scientific.
Dennis McCarthy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Vajk" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 11:31:26 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
I've noticed lately that the defintion of science I picked up from
Karl Popper (that it is a critical activity including criticism by
experimentation where possible) must be drastically different than the
defintion of science assumed by some of more visible posters here.
How about a little poll on this.
In one or two paragraphs in your own words, describe what science
means to you, and if possible from whom your defintion is influenced
by.
LOL. Nice troll. This group went on forever about
"what is physics."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 11:58:01 AM |
|
|
Bill Vajk wrote:
LOL. Nice troll. This group went on forever about
"what is physics."
Not a troll. There are legitimate questions concerning the nature of
science.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Vajk" |
|
| Title: Re: For fun: What is science? |
08 Jan 2004 12:30:59 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Bill Vajk wrote:
LOL. Nice troll. This group went on forever about
"what is physics."
Not a troll. There are legitimate questions concerning the nature of
science.
Yes there are.
Given the audience.......
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
