I don't see why this is "the end of theory." On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Economists, > from wired > - http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory > quoting from article; > But faced with massive data, this approach to science — hypothesize, model, > test — is becoming obsolete. Consider physics: Newtonian models were crude > approximations of the truth (wrong at the atomic level, but still useful). A > hundred years ago, statistically based quantum mechanics offered a better > picture — but quantum mechanics is yet another model, and as such it, too, > is flawed, no doubt a caricature of a more complex underlying reality. The > reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional > grand unified models over the past few decades (the "beautiful story" phase > of a discipline starved of data) is that we don't know how to run the > experiments that would falsify the hypotheses — the energies are too high, > the accelerators too expensive, and so on > thanks, > Doyle Saylor > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
-- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
