Theoretical physicists are of course less practiqual minded. But the
right point of comparison would then be theoretical chemists.
The key point, however, is that neither chemistry nor physics should be
taken as equivelants to the buch of people currently practicing the
these sciences.
That would be reductionalism, ignoring the basic views by CSP.
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 6.12.2016 23:01:
On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:12 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
How come you say chemists have a "more practical field"??? This I
find an amusing note.
Is there a rationale behind this note, or is it just a flippant one
which cannot be given any grounds for?
Chemists tend to be grounded more with experiment whereas theoretical
physicists often are unencumbered by empirical data. The whole focus
on not only grand unified theories but all sorts of odd theoretical
largely mathematical constructs is common. There’s a big divide in
physics between those of a more empirical bent doing experiment and
those of a more mathematical or abstract bent doing theory. Not that
people don’t have feet in both areas at times - I certainly did back
in my physics days. But it seems quite different culturally from my
friends who are chemists even in academia.
Admittedly there are hybrid disciplines like material science which is
often physics but still more tied to engineering or chemistry in
mindset. But the way physicists are acculturated seems quite different
from chemists, geologists or the like.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
