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