>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
>To: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>, Jonathan Clarke
><jdac@alphalink.com.au>
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: preposterous
>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:06:32 -0400
>
>I have always said that physics is the prototype of science and I do not
>know of any reasonable argument against that. The proof of that is the
>historical order in which the different sciences achieved maturity.
[snip]
>Moorad
>
Using the historical order as proof of physics as the type specimen for
science seems akin to arguing that the Ford Model T is the standard by which
to judge all cars that followed. Physics, like the Model T, was constructed
first because it was the easiest to make with the tools available. That the
interaction of physics and human ingenuity has produced the technologies
that made possible major advances in fields like biology should not alone
stand as a reason for _ranking_ fields of inquiry and finding physics on
top. Using equipment available to Kepler et al., it would be silly to ask
them to determine the structures of DNA, never mind what we have been able
to learn about biological evolution with that molecule.
Jeff
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 18:29:10 EDT