Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM: > It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that > theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make 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. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella A greased up atomic pavillion ============================================================ 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
