RE: Myth

--- "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> Scientists who write books on science for a general,
> non-scientific audience do not use the mathematical
> description underlying their presentation. Can that
> be viewed as myth? A reader who knows the math
> behind the writing can understand the text and know
> that what the author is writing is truly correct.
> However, a reader who does not know the mathematics
> cannot deduce from the writing the scientific models
> underlying the writing and must take it on faith.
>
Or to amplify the example even more, if he fails to
report the results of every single experiment ever
done to test the model and explain how the variations
in results are within statistical error for the
measuring devices used, and fails to derive the proofs
for the statistics upon which he relies and fails to
discuss the theory behind statistical error, can it be
viewed as a myth? It is rarely the case in most
scientific efforts, that the experiments reflect the
exactly predicted results (Mendel notwithstanding --
back to that in a moment), so are the expressions of
the laws myths, because experiments rarely get the
exact results predicted?

As to Mendel, one of the few (only?) people who ever
managed to do an "experiment" where he got EXACTLY the
predicted results, since it is extremely improbable
that the results one would get would be exact,
genetics must be a myth.

In other words, most of the ratiocination that goes on
using an incorrect meaning of myth and bizarre notions
of how to prove something as false, etc.; is ignorant
in the extreme on the part of the person trying to
make such arguments. And far from rational, IMHO,
such ratiocination is irrational in the extreme.

>
> Moorad
(SNIP)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
Received on Wed Dec 31 12:38:37 2003