From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 13:27:53 EST
I published the following letter in Physics Today (November 2000
issue), which may be of interest. Moorad
http://www.aip.org/web2/aiphome/pt/vol-53/iss-11/p14.html
One gathers from Mano Singham that teaching science ought also to
include teaching what science is not.
Physics is essentially an experimental science in which laws are
arrived at by generalizing results obtained by experiments. Astronomy
is an observational science, whereas cosmology and evolutionary
theory are more akin to forensic science. Because cosmology and
evolutionary theory deal with unique events and rely on deduction
rather than induction, the search for truth is not as convincing or
conclusive as it is
in physics.
It is clear that detectors, governed by the laws of nature, can
obtain all the data needed to do science. Such data are the sole
input for scientific theories. Of course, the human mind is the
creator of mathematics and develops the models to describe the
systems determined by the physical data.
If nonhuman detectors cannot detect a thing, then it does not
constitute scientific data nor is it the subject matter of science.
It is important to distinguish this type of data from the data
gathered by humans when they are considered as "instruments" or
"detectors." The human "detector" takes in more than the purely
physical; in particular, it "detects" intelligence or design in
nature owing to the reasoning ability of the human mind. Making all
this clear would have helped Doug realize that relativity is not a
matter of belief but that what is required of a theory is that its
predictions are consistent with experimental data. Such clarification
might have led Jamal to realize that cosmology is not a verbal
scenario of the origin of what exists but rather a set of
mathematical formulas that govern the dynamics of the universe.
Teachers ought to encourage students to express their skepticism of
scientific concepts and theories. True learning occurs only when the
learner, whether student or teacher, finds answers to his or her own
doubts.
Moorad Alexanian
University of North Carolina
at Wilmington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 American Institute of Physics
Table of Contents About Physics Today Contact us
-----Original Message-----
From: RFaussette@aol.com [mailto:RFaussette@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:59 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: science as a complement of cognitions is not necessarily
science
In a message dated 12/20/02 3:25:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
stromme@mi.uib.no writes:
> Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the
> character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of
> real truth. --Sir W.
> Hamilton.
>
>
Yes, precisely, and real truth does not change. Your complement of cognitions
may change, but then according to this definition, if your complement of
cognitions do not, in point of matter, have the character of real truth, they
are not science. Alchemy was thought to be science. The complement of
cognitions did not reflect real truth.
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 20 2002 - 22:37:47 EST