----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: What is science.
Here's my critique of geology according to the criterion I put forth:
1) It assumes that the objects under study act according to laws of
nature, not according to volition
2) It is empirically based
3) It is experimentally based.
4) It makes broad predictions from a few basic principals
5) It makes precise predictions
6) It is reductionistic
7) It is synthetic
8) It is falsifiable by additional experiments
9) It survives as a special case of the newer theory
Let us look at economics in the light of these rules.
1) Definitely. No one will argue that earth formations chose to be where
they are
2) Definitely. Introspection is not used as data
3) Mostly yes. There are a lot of lab experiments that pertain to geology.
Further, coming up with a hypothesis and testing it in a number of different
locations also suffices
4) The results on this are mixed. There are some very broad predictions
that work very well >across many fields. Yet, there is still a lot of local
knowledge that is used in analyzing geological >data. in the direction of
broad based fundamental rules.
5) In some cases, definitely so. In other cases, no. The precision of
predictions in oil field related geology have improved tremendously over the
last 10 years.
>
6) Absolutely. It reduces to chemistry and physics. Indeed, this
reductionism to chemistry and physics is absolutely critical to the work
done in applied geology
7) I'd say yes. Different fields have been synthesized into modern
geosciences. It is a bit tricky, because some of the fields that are part
of the synthesis are based on reductionism.
8) Yes. For example, theories of oil deposition have been falsifed in the
last 10 years. The old view of mountain building has been falsified.
9) That is starting now in limited areas. For example, older theories that
assume uniform resistivity are special cases of theories that include
anisotrophy.
> >
So, lets summarize. We have 1=definitely, 2=definitely, 3=mostly yes,
4=mixed, 5=mixed, 6=definitely, 7=generally yes 8=yes and 9=starting out.
Not as good a score as biochemistry, but far better than ecconomics. I'd
say yes, but it is a softer science than physics or biochemistry.
Dan M.
