> [...] Physicists are doubting their ability to find a truly
> fundamental description of all physical phenomena--a purely reductionist
> point of view. If physics is not the prototype of science, then what is the
> best example of it? You tell me!
Should there be a single prototype of science? It seems clear to me
that some of the methods of physics don't work very well in other sciences,
and vice versa. This suggests that a more general definition of science,
one that doesn't rely on the methods particular to physics, might be
more useful. But as in most matters of definition, I don't think there
is any authority we can appeal to to decide on the "right" definition.
Steve Schaffner
sschaff@slac.stanford.edu