RE: preposterous

From: Stephen J. Krogh (panterragroup@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Apr 05 2001 - 21:49:01 EDT

  • Next message: Preston Garrison: "Functional proteins from a random library"

    A little too fast with the smell checker, I got a little "mental." just
    disregard that typo: most fundamental 'mental' to more encompassing

    Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    President,
    The PanTerra Group
    ======================

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    > Behalf Of Stephen J. Krogh
    > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:47 PM
    > To: asa@calvin.edu
    > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: RE: preposterous
    >
    >
    >
    > My first geology professor put it this way. If you were to arrange the
    > sciences from the most fundamental mental to more encompassing, where each
    > progressive field relies on the previous fields, the order would be 1)
    > mathematics; 2) physics; 3)chemistry; 4)biology; 5)Geology.
    >
    > So most base would be:
    >
    > mathematics,
    > then Physics which is encompassing of all the above;
    > then Chemistry, which is encompassing of all the above;
    > then Biology, which is encompassing of all the above;
    > then Geology, which is encompassing of all the above.
    >
    > Each of the sciences are built on the preceding fields. Please
    > bear in mind
    > that this was in a freshman Geology Class, so other fields were not
    > necessarily considered.
    >
    >
    > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    > President,
    > The PanTerra Group
    > ======================
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    > > Behalf Of Jonathan Clarke
    > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:17 PM
    > > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    > > Subject: Re: preposterous
    > >
    > >
    > > I am glad you finding this useful, so am I. I also believe we are
    > > achieving
    > > common ground which is the goal of these conversation. I am
    > having trouble
    > > keeping up with all the posts though! Some further thoughts.
    > >
    > > I am not quite clear what you mean that physics is the prototype of all
    > > sciences. Physics did develop early on, however many people who
    > > thought on
    > > physics also wrote on other subjects. Aristole wrote not only on
    > > physics but
    > > also biology, astronomy, geography, and philosophy. Galileo on
    > > physics but also
    > > astronomy, Kepler on physics, astonomy, and magic, Descartes
    > > astromony, physics,
    > > geology, and philosophy. If by prototype you mean exemplar of the
    > > scientific
    > > method, again I am not sure this is correct. The scientific
    > > method was the
    > > result of developments not only in physics but also astronomy,
    > > geology (Steno,
    > > the Newton of geology, wrote in the 17h century) terms, togther
    > > with history,
    > > philosophy and theology. Each subdiscipline developed its own
    > > special methods to
    > > deal with the particular problems of its field. Taxonomy in
    > biology, for
    > > example.
    > >
    > > I am glad you are not a metaphysical reductionist (as a Christian
    > > I would be
    > > most surprised if you were). However I think we also have to be
    > > careful to
    > > avoid reductionism with respect to science as well. While
    > > physics underlies
    > > every interaction in the world, it is, in itself, not a complete
    > > explanation for
    > > everything. So where the holy grail of a physical TOE appear,
    > > the only people
    > > unemployed would be physicists, the rest of us would still have a
    > > lot to do.
    > >
    > > Finally, we can always talk about things outside our expertise
    > > (life would be
    > > boring if we could) and outsuide people also bring a fresh
    > perspective to
    > > something. But of course the contribution of insiders must always be
    > > recognised.
    > >
    > > Jon
    > >
    > > Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    > >
    > > > Physics is the prototype of all sciences. I do not say that
    > everyone who
    > > > knows what science is will say that. Historical sciences are not like
    > > > physics, why then qualify it with the word historical? Any
    > > person who wants
    > > > to treat his/her subject matter of study quantitatively and
    > > with rigor can
    > > > learn a lot from the methodology followed in physics and they
    > > do! I do not
    > > > reduce everything to physics. I am a Christian and realize
    > > there is more to
    > > > reality than matter. That is why it would be silly to attempt
    > to deduce
    > > > political norms, etc. to physics (materialism). I agree with
    > > your statement
    > > > that man must analyze reality and thus introduce different
    > disciples but
    > > > later one must integrate all that knowledge to truly understand
    > > nature and
    > > > man. There are, for instance, different levels of description
    > > of man that
    > > > include, chemistry, biology, physics, theology, psychology,
    > > sociology, etc.
    > > > One disciple cannot claim to explain man. It is clear that
    > > history handles
    > > > its data in a different ways than physics handles its data.
    > Establishing
    > > > facts are done differently in those fields; of course, the
    > > human brain works
    > > > equally in all these areas of endeavor. There is a difference
    > > between doing
    > > > biology and discussing about biology. The former is the
    > > technical aspect
    > > > while the latter is the study of the presuppositions made in
    > > biology and how
    > > > they relate to other disciples. We can all discuss the
    > > philosophy of biology
    > > > without being practicing biologists. I have enjoyed this
    > > exchange and hope
    > > > you have learned as much as I have. Moorad
    > > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
    > > > Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
    > > > Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:26 AM
    > > > Subject: Re: preposterous
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >> What I wrote and what you say I said are totally different.
    > > That is the
    > > > type
    > > > >> of rigorous thinking that is lacking in the speculative
    > > areas that deal
    > > > with
    > > > >> questions of origins. You "summarize" what I said with the
    > > phrase "How
    > > > many
    > > > >> times do you need to be told that there is more to science
    > > than physics?"
    > > > >> Please explain to me, how does that logically follows from
    > > what I said?
    > > > >
    > > > >My statement was based several conversations we have had in
    > > the past when
    > > > you
    > > > >have expressed statements to the effect that physics was superior to
    > > > historical
    > > > >studies. How does this lack in rigour? Your most recent statement
    > > > supports
    > > > >this. You certainly said "I judge the work in that area (ie
    > > evolutionary
    > > > >biology and historical geology) and compare it with the rigor that is
    > > > needed to
    > > > >do good physics and realize that most, if not all, is very
    > > speculative and
    > > > may
    > > > >border on bad science." Therefore good physics is better than
    > > most or all
    > > > >evolutionary biology.
    > > > >
    > > > >> Chemistry, biology, microbiology, etc. are sciences and I
    > > can assure you
    > > > >> that every person that practices such disciples wants to do his/her
    > > > science
    > > > >> they way physicist do theirs!!
    > > > >
    > > > >Every person? I don't know any biologist (or geologist) who wants to
    > > > emulate
    > > > >physicists. There may be some who might suffer from physics
    > > envy, but that
    > > > is
    > > > >their problem.
    > > > >
    > > > >> In fact, some will even say that those disciplines can be
    > eventually
    > > > reduced
    > > > >> to physics.
    > > > >
    > > > >Some may say this, but they are guilty of the most naive
    > > reductionism. In
    > > > what
    > > > >way can animal behavior be reduced to physics? In what way
    > > can a sequence
    > > > of
    > > > >historically contingent events in a sedimentary basin be
    > predicted from
    > > > >physics? In what way can physics allow us to determine the
    > > political norms
    > > > of a
    > > > >given society? Biology, geology, and the social sciences wrestle with
    > > > questions
    > > > >that physics cannot even begin to to answer.
    > > > >
    > > > >What we need to recognise is that there is a taxonomy of
    > disciplines we
    > > > call
    > > > >sciences. These share certain common characteristics, which
    > > is why we call
    > > > them
    > > > >sciences. These include being observation based, rational,
    > attempts at
    > > > >determining relationships in the material world. Common
    > tools include
    > > > >deduction, induction, falsifiability, repeatability, prediction, and
    > > > explanatory
    > > > >power. Within this larger taxonomic grouping there are
    > differences in
    > > > >methodology based on the object of study. So we have the
    > theoretical,
    > > > >experiment, observational, historical, and behavioural
    > > sciences. It is
    > > > >pointless it fault the methodology of one because it does not
    > > conform to
    > > > the
    > > > >methodology of the other. The theoretical rationalism and even
    > > > instrumentalism
    > > > >of some theoretical physics works well in that field but is perhaps
    > > > irrelevant
    > > > >to biology. the historical principles of Steno are essential to
    > > > archaeology and
    > > > >geology but completely irrelevant to sociology or quantum theory.
    > > > >
    > > > >> Did O.J. killed Nicole and her friend? Forensics science
    > > may say yes,
    > > > but the
    > > > >> answer may be no.
    > > > >> How many shooters killed president Kennedy? So we really
    > > know!! Those
    > > > are
    > > > >> the sort of questions asked in historical sciences. Are the
    > > answers to
    > > > these
    > > > >> questions conclusive? You tell me.
    > > > >
    > > > >Of course there are limits what we can know about the past.
    > > But the fact
    > > > we do
    > > > >not know everything does not mean we therefore know nothing.
    > > We may not
    > > > (thanks
    > > > >the obfuscation of the legal profession combined with
    > > insufficient data)
    > > > know
    > > > >who killed Nicole and friend , but I presume that even you do
    > > not dispute
    > > > that
    > > > >the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, that Napoleon lost at Waterloo or
    > > > Jerusalem
    > > > >was destroyed in AD70. How is this dissimilar to the
    > situation in the
    > > > physical
    > > > >sciences. Because there is no TOE (and perhaps will never be a TOE),
    > > > because of
    > > > >quantum uncertainty, does this mean that it is impossible to
    > > say anything
    > > > about
    > > > >physical interaction?
    > > > >
    > > > >I ask again: How much work in historical geology (or
    > > evolutionary biology)
    > > > have
    > > > >you actually done and how much have you reviewed for you to make this
    > > > judgment?
    > > > >Have you actually done the morphological analysis of fossils
    > through a
    > > > >stratigraphic section? Have you looked at gene distribution and
    > > > transmission
    > > > >in isolated populations? Have you actually attempted to work out the
    > > > geological
    > > > >history of an area or even a single depositional unit? How
    > > wide a range of
    > > > the
    > > > >literature in these fields have you read? I don't mean
    > > popularisations, I
    > > > mean
    > > > >actual papers. Unless you have done this sort of work you
    > > have no basis
    > > > for
    > > > >your sweeping generalisations.
    > > > >
    > > > >Jon
    > > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 21:49:06 EDT