Re: preposterous

From: Jeff Witters (
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 18:29:01 EDT

  • Next message: Todd S. Greene: "Origin or Formation"

    >From: Moorad Alexanian <>
    >To: george murphy <>, Jonathan Clarke
    >Subject: Re: preposterous
    >Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:06:32 -0400
    >I have always said that physics is the prototype of science and I do not
    >know of any reasonable argument against that. The proof of that is the
    >historical order in which the different sciences achieved maturity.

      Using the historical order as proof of physics as the type specimen for
    science seems akin to arguing that the Ford Model T is the standard by which
    to judge all cars that followed. Physics, like the Model T, was constructed
    first because it was the easiest to make with the tools available. That the
    interaction of physics and human ingenuity has produced the technologies
    that made possible major advances in fields like biology should not alone
    stand as a reason for _ranking_ fields of inquiry and finding physics on
    top. Using equipment available to Kepler et al., it would be silly to ask
    them to determine the structures of DNA, never mind what we have been able
    to learn about biological evolution with that molecule.

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 18:29:10 EDT