Re: Evolution is alive and well
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 09 Oct 1998 13:13:04 -0500 (EST)
At 12:39 PM 10/9/98 -0400, James Taggart wrote:
>Concerning the discussion of physics as the "prototype of science," I
>wonder if you are not taking too simplistic a view of what physics is.
>Physics is quite precise when you are making predictions about a small
>number of bodies under the rules of Newtonian mechanics (or even quantum
>mechanics). When you have a large number of bodies, physics is no more
>helpful in explaining behavior than evolution is in explaining the origin
>of body plans or geology is in explaining when the next volcano is going to
>erupt. Physics can explain clearly why there are solar flares but can not
>predict when the next flareup is going to be. Physics can't even explain
>why the solar system persists. The problem is not with the science, it's
>with the complexity of the systems being examined.
Physics cannot even predict that the sun will come up tomorrow. I grant your
point. It is true that bricklayers do not use physics to explain bricks
before laying them. However, when we use the word "science" then we have to
be careful. I do not believe that political science is a science, for
instance. The mere use of mathematical and/or physical jargons does not make
something a science. Physicists are doubting their ability to find a truly
fundamental description of all physical phenomena--a purely reductionist
point of view. If physics is not the prototype of science, then what is the
best example of it? You tell me!
Moorad