Re: Evolution and Observation Gap


"Jack Crenshaw" <jcrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lL0Yf.94$BS2.90@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SeppoP wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:

<snip>

As someone else on this thread has noted, physics (and math, and
chemistry, and other hard sciences)are based on the Scientific method.
The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis,
Experiment, Observation.


Interesting... I've always thought that math is part of formal logic,
which, again, is part of philosophy and as such,
an essential tool of science, but not *science* per se. Could you
elaborate?


When Newton developed his Theory of Gravity, he didn't do it overnight.
He proposed the theory (along with his three laws of motion), then he
and other folks effectively said, "Ok, let's see where this leads us."
They did their math, made predictions, then observed to see if the
predictions came true. Each time that a prediction proved true, it
added to the confidence in the theory.

By contrast, Darwin proposed a theory. All of his followers said
"Sounds good to us," and have been saying so ever since.

Show me your math; show me your predictions; show me how your
observations match your predictions. Otherwise, stop going on about
your "science."



Perhaps you might want to describe to us what *your* view of science is

Ok. I think I have the same view as about 99% of the scientists on the
planet, which is that there are distinct differences between the hard
sciences like Physics, the intermediate sciences like chemistry, and the
fringe sciences like psychology. I suppose we should find a place in
there somewhere for things like behavioral science and medicine.

There's no doubt that all are sciences, in the sense that they require
training, rational thought, and observations of Nature. But surely even
you would conced that measuring, say, the rest mass of an electron is
fundamentally different than measuring the effect of smoking on heart
disease, or the effectiveness of behavior modification.

I realize that there are some scientists who get perturbed by the notion
that some sciences are harder than others, especially if they believe,
as you might, that it's a condescending physicist making the statement.


Funny story about that. In the 19th century geologists and biologists had
come to the opinion that the Earth and Sun must be hundreds-of-millions of
years old. Life required long periods of time to evolve, and geologists knew
that the multitude of strata would take eons to form. Physicists considered
the situation. The Earth has a hot interior as can be inferred from
volcanoes. If the Earth was formed hot and then cooled over time, physicists
calculated the Earth and Sun could only be a few million years old and still
retain residual heat.

Of course, that was before the discovery of radiation and the development of
Atomic Theory. Now, physicists are more than happy to admit that the
biologists were right. And physicists are often called upon to date the
rocks associated with fossils. Some call that "hard science".

--
Zachriel
"not just a mere similarity, but a family resemblance.?
http://www.zachriel.com/nested/



Nevertheless, it's still a true statement, and anyone who doesn't see
the distinction has probably never studied physicd, math, or chemistry.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but real physicists don't sell
other physicists on the validity of their theory, by calling the other
guys names.

Jack




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr: Changes in lengths and rates are real!
    ... you have any math in SR that is not allowed to be ... conclude that all frames are equal, on a measurement ... because, first of all, it is correct science as far ... Most physicists have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis, ... an essential tool of science, ... The Earth has a hot interior as can be inferred from ... If the Earth was formed hot and then cooled over time, physicists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis, ... an essential tool of science, ... but I thought math was not reducible to logic. ... "garbage in equals garbage out". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... Science is not based upon the words ... the math to be correct. ... limitations by the present day physicists. ... Why are there three dimensions? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: BBC 100 Most Popular books
    ... Science is math. ... Math has plenty of proofs, and science, well, it at least has ... I've been studying Karl Popper lately.) ... Physicists. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)