Re: definition of science

Don't confuse an infinity of patterns (models) with an infinity of
applications (events). Koenigs, Poincare and I are talking of the former.
Dave

On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:48:55 -0700 "Don Winterstein"
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
Dave Siemens wrote:

"On the infinite number of models, we go back to the turn of the past
century. ... A country engineer, Koenigs, presented a proof that any
pattern of motion could be arrived at by an infinite number of different
devices."

On further thought I'm wondering if this isn't really something like the
inverse of what we need to make the point. That is, Koenigs proved that
an infinitude of models could produce a particular pattern of motion.
But such a model is not analogous to a scientific theory. A scientific
theory goes the other way: In science a single model accounts (at least
in principle) for an infinitude of motions. I'd say it's vastly harder
to find even a small number--much less an infinitude--of models that can
adequately do this than to find an infinitude of ways to generate a
specific pattern. So I'm not convinced.

Don
Received on Wed May 4 15:13:16 2005