Joe, E=MC2 Explained.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html JP On Nov 5, 8:47 pm, "Edward Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe, > > It is mathematics, a TOOL for understanding the universe. > > Ed > > "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both. " > Robert Frost (1874-1963). Mountain Interval. 1920. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joseph Zorzin > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:42 PM > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report > > Ed, is E=MC squared science or engineering? > > Joe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edward Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:05 PM > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report > > Joe, > > The world expressed as a series of equations is an engineering concept not a > scientific one. > > ********** Ed, is "E=MC" squared science or engineering? > > In order to be valid we must know all things about every variable of the > proposition. > > ********** Science doesn't have to "know" all things about all the > variables- it only needs to build models- then test them, then improve the > model, etc. > > Since we do not know, and perhaps can not know all things about every > variable in a complex system, then our scientific understanding will be > limited to only the most simple of things. > > ********** Not sure what you mean.... > > That is one of the great failures of modern science, perhaps driven by our > ability to manipulate numbers so well by computer, is the drive to quantify > everything and to simply ignore things that can't be readily quantified. > > ********** Quantification along with theorizing, model building, testing > and modification of theories and models, is what makes science different > than other forms of inquiry. > > There is often the opinion that a bad quantification is better than no > numbers at all. That is not true, if the the bad models resulting from bad > quantification lead you to the wrong conclusions. > > ********** You'll only be led to the wrong concludions if you do wrong > testing of the models. Sure, numbers along prove nothing but without numbers > you can't test the model. Without testing a model you depned on faith. > > We need to categorize things iteratively, but the arbitrary assignment of > numbers to poorly understood phenomena doesn't help. > > ********** Arbitrary assignment of numbers certainly isn't the method of > science. > > Scientific understanding is based upon a logic structure that may contain > equations, but does not need to be numerical to be scientific. > > ********** Without numbers, you might still come up with good thinking, but > it's not likely to qualify as science. I can't think of any science that > doesn't depend on math- science is about relationships best expressed > numerically. The modeling can exist without numbers at a very early stage > when the theory hasn't advanced enough. > > Requiring a concept be an equation with may quantifiable variables limits > the ability to investigate or to even understand many natural phenomena. > > ********** A concept may be fine without an equation- but a concept does not > rise to the level of science without numbers of various sorts, equations, > statistics, etc. > > Mathematical formulas and equations are a tool of scientific > investigation, but are not themselves science, no more than a shovel is the > same thing as a hole in the ground. > > ********** Yes, the math is a tool of science- but not much science exists > without that tool- it's actually more of a tool, it's the way in which the > particular science is expressed to indicate relationships between variables, > without which you can't build a model, without which you can't test it, and > without testing, you don't have science. > > Not that I would know, I'm no Phd- I'm only a lowly field forester, what > would I know? <G> > > Joe > > Ed > > "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both. " > Robert Frost (1874-1963). Mountain Interval. 1920. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joseph Zorzin > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rendezvous Report > > Joe > PS: to me, the concept is an equation with many variables- each variable > must be quantifiable including values not yet in the marketplace- while > social and political values also plugged into the equation must be > transparent. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
