Re: prposterous

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Mon Apr 09 2001 - 09:49:07 EDT

  • Next message: Paul Nelson: "Re: Functional proteins from a random library"

    With the advent of experimental physics with Galileo and the theoretical
    method with Newton, man learned how to ask questions to nature and how to
    develop theories that placed many experimental facts under one umbrella.
    That was the big thing done by such giants. The methodology was established
    for all future inquires into the workings of nature. That is all I am
    saying. BTW the important thing that Henry Ford accomplished with the model
    T was mass production. Moorad

    >>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
    >to judge all cars that followed. Physics, like the Model T, was
    >first because it was the easiest to make with the tools available. That
    >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 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 09:49:08 EDT