Physical constants

From: Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 00:14:28 EST

  • Next message: Robert Wahl: "Alpha"

    I have alluded to this before but I want to emphasize:

    A physcist is a scientist looking for a grant. Generally, they do not
    care at all what the philsophical consequences of the physics are. This
    is for some lunnies in another building. Not so in biology where some
    blatantly insert philsophy and unsupported assumptions and begin with
    "evolution (meaning evolutionism) is the central concept of biology.
    Actually, I would like to propose the counter that "design "(meaning
    God) is the central concept of biology.

    Now in my graduate student days at a major university we discussed
    issues such as is the speed of light realy a constant with time and so
    forth about the other constants of the universe. Then, we considered
    such questions as to how would we know. The matter is really very very
    complex. Many constants conspire to occure in phsical phenomena in
    groups so if one is changed the others have to change to keep the
    universe functioning as we know it.

    NEVER was the philsophical import of all this discussed or cared about.
    Like who cares. This is a far cry from the view of some who portray
    scientists as some kind of a cult to kill God. In biology with the
    evolutionary white-wash I suppose. However, I have sitting in front of
    me a very large book which is a survey of modern biology. Guess what:
    It begins with the grand assumption about evolution as the core but then
    goes on to basically ignore this. Reality is that evolution is inserted
    in the text here and there almost as a chant to some unknown god but not
    realy for much explanatory power and certainly and absolutely no
    predictive power.

    Let me encourge you to believe that the scinetific community which most
    assuredly does not believe that the speed of light is changing is not
    taking this position for any phisophical or theological agenda.
    Further, the question has been and is continuing to be re-asked because
    showing it to be wrong immediately gets a big Nobel prize.

    Bert M.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 00:16:35 EST