Re: Evolution is alive and well (fwd)
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:53:43 -0500 (EST)
At 10:26 AM 10/9/98 -0700, sschaff@SLAC.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>Moorad wrote
>
>> [...] 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!
>
>Should there be a single prototype of science? It seems clear to me
>that some of the methods of physics don't work very well in other sciences,
>and vice versa. This suggests that a more general definition of science,
>one that doesn't rely on the methods particular to physics, might be
>more useful. But as in most matters of definition, I don't think there
>is any authority we can appeal to to decide on the "right" definition.
>
>
>Steve Schaffner
>sschaff@slac.stanford.edu
I find the notion of finding a more general definition of science
"dangerous." The methodology of science is best exemplified by physics. The
chain of events leading to theory via experiments and laws summarizing
experimental data is clearly the modus operandi of physics--the inductive
aspect of science. I do not know what a theory explaining complexity in
terms of simpler things would look like. My guess, or hope, is that it would
still fall within the purview of how physics is presently practiced.
Moorad