The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently?-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los AngelesOn Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If you remove the "benefit" part and simply talk about the application of the forces of nature, is that what you are calling science?-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los AngelesOn Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
> It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., thatTo be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make
> theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
sense of, give meaning to, physics. Unlike some, I give metaphysics
quite a bit of respect.
To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between "theoretical
physics" and "speculative physics". In order to be "scientific", a
theory must be testable. So, as long as you can _also_ describe your
test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say
that your theory is scientific.
But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to
draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that
your theory is scientific, but not science. It's related to the
science, but it's not the core constituent. "E = MC^2" is a fine
thought. But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it
to make reality different, then it's not science.
The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in
and breathe and manipulate with our fingers.
A greased up atomic pavillion
--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |