Re: The Origins of a Science
- From: "Gordon Hill" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Jul 2006 15:56:12 -0700
Marc wrote:
Gordon Hill wrote:
Although one of the least technically qualified participants in
talk.origins, I thoroughly enjoy what I understand of the interchanges,
even contribute some and have developed a tolerance for occasional
attacks, some justified.
That said, I have been wondering about origins of a science, the seed
that germinates and from which evolved a new discipline.
I am coming to see the significant part philosophy may have played, but
am uncertain of the view you "origin" experts have.
Hypothesis: Every science began with the rational musing of
philosophers and evolved into an orderly discipline.
Marc, When I start a topic I try to respond to every post or strand.
Thanks for your time and thoughts.
Well, it is hard to accept that for either the main fields (math,
biology, physics, chemistry, geology) of for the individual fields
of science that arise in those fields, ecept for a few cases where
it was a "rational musing" that opened a door into a new field.
True. I am convinced, with too little evidence, that a new science may
originate in much the same way a new genus evolves and that
philosophical musings (which I think is the right word, although I
think they are both rational and nonrational, intuition, if you prefer)
may be the "seed".
Take the field of Immunology, for example. Before the 1980's there
were (and to some degree still are) a number of labs studying the
immune system that are "virology" or "medical microbiology" labs.
Perhaps it isn't until there are actual institutes and journals
dedicated
to a topic that it becomes a "field" of science. Immunology crosses
over between the medical fields, transplant biology having driven a
lot of the early research into histocompatibility antigens - not to
mention cancer, infectious disease and autoimmunity, and fields
like marine biology and genetics. Where one field drops off and
another picks up can take some expertise (or a philosopher) to
understand the boundary. It would be interesting to see a flow
chart of how one science led into another over time, with things
like genetics weaving in and out of fields while something like the
development of monoclonal antibodies in immunology all of a
sudden crosses into every other field. Of course, there are the
cross-over disciplines, like "immunogenetics" or a splitting
into different paths as a field focuses on different issues.
An earlier post suggested it was when the convention got so big that
the minor divisions couldn't get the good rooms and (my inference)
enough slots on the program.
I don't see two guys, even philosophers, sitting by a pond when
one tosses a rock in and then says "waves, man... we need a
field of wavology". I have seen workshops on esoteric topics (like
"IR genes and Ia antigens") be a birthplace for something (like
"Immunogenetics"). I'm sure a lot of physics and geology fields
have done similar things. (But watching "NUMB3RS" has warped
my opinion of mathematicians so that one of them is of course
an expert in all of the topics.)
Agreed. I don't think it is the result of relaxed contemplation, I am
convinced there is considerable heat in the process, that more progress
is made through disputes that lead toward the need for proofs, than the
polite contemplation of things cerebral.
I think the intellectual irritation we see across the scientifically
based groups is what prompts the movement from a chaotic "thought set"
toward a disciplined inquiry leading to the need, or desire, for proofs
and that the field of philosophy is where a great deal of thinking,
both rational and nonrational exists.
.
- References:
- The Origins of a Science
- From: Gordon Hill
- Re: The Origins of a Science
- From: Marc
- The Origins of a Science
- Prev by Date: Re: The way it stands
- Next by Date: Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- Previous by thread: Re: The Origins of a Science
- Next by thread: Re: The Origins of a Science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
