RE: definition of science

From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 13:20:11 EDT

Moorad wrote:
>Of course, the question of origins can and ought to be taken as far back
>as possible. However, whatever initial conditions we choose must be
>clearly stated and not be our conclusions.
>
>Many Darwinist do say that "evolution is a fact" rather than say that it
>is a working hypostasis.
>

Some of what they call "fact" actually means there is
little room for doubt anymore. Even Einstein's theory
of relativity is to some small extent a "working
hypothesis", but I think most anyone who might chose to
studied gravitation would probably consider it essentially
fact.

>The rules of mathematics are so analogous to logic that some think the
>two are the same. I will not get into that argument. However, it is true
>that the easiest and best way we know of making unequivocal predictions
>is by setting the laws of nature in mathematical form.
>

Often, we physicists come into the act rather late when
biologist have already wrangled through the issues sufficiently
that we are left with a small number of possible alternatives.
The real problem in biology sometimes is that there
can be many possible answers, and you must figure out a way to
discern the best. They are "hard to do sciences" in this sense.
Most of us physicists are not used to having to sort through
many possibilities.

I don't completely agree that mathematics is always so
straight forward. For the theory of relativity, that
may be so, but there are some examples that I've
encountered where one can explained something by
different models quantitatively. Ultimately, only
one model should be right, but it is not always
so easy to see which. People can even "believe"
models that are entirely wrong just because they
work from some limiting conditions that just so
happen to be what were tested.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Mon Apr 25 13:21:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 13:21:55 EDT