Howard J. Van Till wrote: .
> Natural science is a disciplined and systematic human activity that includes
> observation, measurement, experimentation, theory formulation and theory
> evaluation. Activity in any one of these categories is likely to stimulate
> fruitful action in the others. The goal of the natural sciences is to
> understand what our physical universe is like, how it functions, and how it
> got to be the way it now is. To that end the sciences seek to craft theories
> that give an adequate/satisfying account of what can be observed
> (qualitative) and measured (quantitative) in our world.
> Given this concept of the natural sciences, the formulation and evaluation
> of the Grand Evolutionary Theory on the basis of what can now be observed
> and/or measured falls well within the scientific domain.
> Howard Van Till
I believe that Pasteur and Thompson were attempting to say that a valid theory
should be both quantitative and predictive in nature. If not, then it just is
not good science. I think that even alchemy and astrology would fit the above
Insofar as the "grand evolutionary theory" goes. I did a phrase search using
Google and came up with only ONE hit on the web
(http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$552) . For "unified field theory"
I got 12,700. Both of these theories share something in common in that neither
of them exist yet. Both are pie in the sky notions that science might some day
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 29 2001 - 09:23:24 EST