Michael Roberts wrote:
> > Then do experiments to test the validity of your claims. But do not rest
> > what nature has already done since that is history not science.
> I get sick of those who cannot/will not recognise historical science
> and assume physics is the only true science.Was it Bragg who said "all
> science is physics the rest is stamp-collecting". What Moorad does is to
> assume that science must always be experimental and simply ignores what
> William Whewell called the palaeoaetiological sciences way back in c1840.
> Historical and experimental sciences have different but overlapping
> methodologies. There ARE parallels between historical science and human
> history as both depend on ancient evidence. One artefacts are used in
> history we have moved away from relying on human recorders (as if an
> eyewitness is always reliable)
> I cant help feeling that Moorad and others simply balnk out historical
Das ist gewisslich wahr! But please do not blame all physicists for this error
- even physicists like myself who think that physics is the most precise &, in a
sense, most fundamental of the natural sciences. The future aspect of
"prediction" is secondary. What is crucial in providing support for a theory -
whether physics, biology, geology, or anything else - is explaining previously
unknown, or unaccounted for, phenomena. Whether those phenomena happened 10^8
years ago or will happen tomorrow is of minor importance for this purpose.
& in fact physics itself isn't primarily in the business of "predicting"
specific events in the future. Those who "predicted" the omega-minus or the top
quark weren't concerned with when such a particle would be seen or at what
accelerator. It's the general pattern of events that's of interest.
BTW, I think it was Rutherford who made the stamp-collecting remark. I'm
mildly offended by it, but only because I'm a stamp collector!
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 17:15:41 EST