RE: Moorad's assumed timeline

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 15:17:52 EDT

If science deals with the physical aspect of the universe, then the subject matter of science is data that can, in principle, be collected by purely physical devices. That is my definition of science. Of course, if what is life cannot be reduced to the physical, then “life” cannot be detected by purely physical devices. Note that living things or being can be detected by purely physical devices but the essence of what life is would be outside of the purview of science. Certainly, one can collect the same data by different means. What is new? I would change my commitment if someone puts forward a more compelling definition of what science is!



        -----Original Message-----
        From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. []
        Sent: Thu 5/20/2004 2:37 PM
        Cc: Alexanian, Moorad;;
        Subject: Re: Moorad's assumed timeline

        On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:09:20 -0400 "George Murphy" <>
> <snip>
> Moorad, I can argue as strongly as anyone that physics is
> "harder" than
> other sciences. But this doesn't mean that those other sciences
> aren't
> sciences at all or that they can't tell us anything about the past.
> You
> have tried to make such a case several times in the past but it just
> won't
> work. As a physicist I appeal to you to give it up.
> Shalom
> George
        If I recall correctly, Moorad has also argued that _mechanical_
        measurements produce/are required for science. Does this mean that
        scoring a rating scale using the old IBM sheets and reader (I think they
        were discontinued in the late '70s) was scientific, whereas hand scoring
        was unscientific? Objectivity, the ideal standard, is not equivalent to
        mechanism. But I don't know what can change his commitments.
Received on Thu May 20 15:18:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 20 2004 - 15:18:16 EDT