Quantiative Science Before Galileo
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Phone Jack
Next: SLA battery orientation?
From: erschroedinger on 14 Jul 2010 15:30 On Jul 14, 1:06 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 10:39 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > "The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of > > the measurement." > > > -- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture > > I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science. > Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I > avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to > contradict qualified physicists. > I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a > science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a > biologist asks me a question. > I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology.. > I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater > than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I > dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them. > The process of biological evolution does not contradict the > Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the > argument. Sorry. What I find is biologists simply things too much. "Breaking the bonds in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds always requires energy. The entire process -- breaking the existing bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy. My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a discipline simplifies things. And by "purity" I mean the standard hierarchy: physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology
From: Bret Cahill on 14 Jul 2010 16:46 > > > "The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of > > > the measurement." > > > > -- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture > > > I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science.. > > Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I > > avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to > > contradict qualified physicists. > > I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a > > science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a > > biologist asks me a question. > > I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology. > > I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater > > than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I > > dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them. > > The process of biological evolution does not contradict the > > Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the > > argument. Sorry. > > What I find is biologists simply things too much. "Breaking the bonds > in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds > always requires energy. The entire process -- breaking the existing > bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy. > > My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a > discipline simplifies things. And by "purity" I mean the standard > hierarchy: > > physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology "Psychology, the queen of sciences." -- Nietzsche
From: Orval Fairbairn on 14 Jul 2010 18:28 In article <1324b0fc-1335-4cc2-af7e-4117ed9ec4ae(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > "The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of > > > > the measurement." > > > > > > -- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture > > > > > � � �I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science. > > > Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I > > > avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to > > > contradict qualified physicists. > > > � � I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a > > > science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a > > > biologist asks me a question. > > > � � I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology. > > > I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater > > > than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I > > > dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them. > > > � � �The process of biological evolution does not contradict the > > > Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the > > > argument. Sorry. > > > > What I find is biologists simply things too much. �"Breaking the bonds > > in ATP releases energy" which is patently false -- breaking bonds > > always requires energy. �The entire process -- breaking the existing > > bonds and forming new ones -- is what releases energy. > > > > My impression is the further away you get from "purity", the more a > > discipline simplifies things. �And by "purity" I mean the standard > > hierarchy: > > > > physics -- chemistry -- biology -- psychology > > "Psychology, the queen of sciences." > > -- Nietzsche So, is it a bunch of psychologists that have concluded that man is causing climate change? -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
From: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 20:38 you going to believe Nietsche over Gauss?... fine. thus&so: check this out. I say, as a (or, the) student of Bucky Fuller, who really grokked spherical trig as the captain of a Naval vessel, just before radio came in, *you* really have to get a grip on spherical geometry. I mean, why do you think they have a "land of midnight sun" -- and extemely short winter days?... so, choose plates one & two! http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html but, it's probably better to start with a "synthetic" approach, viz the study of lunes & "polar trigona" & so forth. also, look-up "Euler poles" re the plates of tectonism -- the theory! > Sunrise and sunset times will remain the same on June 21st unless the thus&so: um, where are the new rotational poles -- New Hampshire, where you live? > If you lived in NH you're now in the north western > hemisphere so to speak, if you lived in the SH you're now in the south > eastern hemisphere so to speak. thus&so: sorry; that cite has only a passing reference to Arnie and his backers; this one is all about that: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2010/2010_10-19/2010-10/2010-10/pdf/19-20_3710.pdf > flight which carried George Shultz's protégé Arnold Schwarzenegger, > to Britain, to meet with that Lord Rothschild ... thus quoth: cool; The Atlantic is one of those interesting, "user-supported" publications, though with a certain amount -- I think -- of corporate grants. here in LA, there is really only one listener-sponsored radio station, KPFK-FM because the NPR affiliates get *massive* grants. unfortunately, they are hopelessly leftoidian, and a British dood runs the Sunday morning "briefing," alas. (see "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" on http://wlym.com .-) thus&so: are you saying that the googolplex is supressing "global cooling" or, What?... as far as I can see, Climategate is courtesy of Tory Murdoch's Times and Urinal publications, with the added editorial blurb of "Captain Tax" in the latter, like he's against it. > Where does the REAL climategate lie? .;o) thus&so: well, "ninety per cent confidence" is a kind of artifact of statistics -- quite accountable to "sigmas" -- or, really, 95% is the more-common benchmark for near-certainty. like, there was a bit of a to-do about the doubling of the margin for the studies about "second-hand smoke" amongst children, which was a) prefectly justifiable, because it's the kids, and b) even though there was no mention (that I read) of the fact that the real problem is the biological byproducts of smoking (i.e bad breath .-) > actually being discussed said it was about 90% probable. This is not "beyond --Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as the old ('91), which Murdoch's Urinal calls, "Captain Tax" for no given reason, in order to service Californiacs via Gulf and Alaska ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net --Forsooth, the Queen of the sciences! http://wlym.com
From: Immortalist on 15 Jul 2010 02:00
On Jul 13, 6:03 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > > > > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > > > > > > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > > > > When did who believe that? > > > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill > > > > > > > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. > > > > > > > > Please define "scientist." > > > > > > > Please don't. > > > > > > > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," > > > > > > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues > > > > > > > regarding the hard sciences. > > > > > > > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th > > > > > > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified > > > > > > to comment on. > > > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > > > > well understood? > > > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > > > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > > > > upon various sociology methodologies is a necessary part of a large > > > > part of hypothesis testing and verification. > > > > Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency. > > > I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" a > > phrase. > > The issue wasn't _your_ use of quotes but just about everyone putting > those terms into quotes, and for good reason. > > . . . > > The only thing the wiki article below got right was hard science has > more sig figs. > > > > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > > > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? > > > Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that > > new people have to learn it also. > > > Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when > > comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard > > meaning perceived as being more scientific, > > A more "scientific science" . . . > > That reasoning goes in a circular circle. > > What the author should have said is hard science uses more explicit > calculations . . . that it is more _quantitative_. > > > rigorous, > > Right now there are some physicists laughing at that one. > > > or accurate. > > As stated before, more sig figs. > > > Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as > > hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described > > as soft. > > Examples ain't definitions or qualities. > > > The hard sciences are characterized as relying on > > experimental, empirical, > > Hard sciences are more theoretical and therefore _less_ experimental > than "soft" sciences. > > The most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century required > no lab work. > > Those meta studies in JAMA. . . there's your soft science. > > > quantifiable > > See the header and below. Before Galileo everything was treated as a > soft science. > > > data, relying on the scientific > > method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the > > hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than > > soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis. > > That should be true but it's probably not. For one thing any idiot > can make a graph out of anything. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science > > > I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." > > > > Before Galileo there was no distinction. > > > > Some believe Galileo made science into a science. > > Bret Cahill > > "The value of a calculation to humanity is inversely proportional to > the number of possible sig figs." > > -- Bret's First Law of Tweaking Embarrassing just reading the responses you made up there. So you really don't know much about the philosophy of science, which you replies indicate. Even your local library probably has four books of the subject. |