re: SCIENCE

[JHageman@swri.edu]

I disagree with the statements given by Fritz A. Seiler. Physics and science, 
in their purest form are the measure of the truth of nature. We simply do not 
have the perfect tools to measure all things. Therefore we can not presently 
measure, and thus know, the full and true relationship of all physical and 
scientific phenomenon.

I also disagree with the quotation at the end of Fritz's statements. In fact 
the most precious thing we have is GOD, who is the Perfect Scientist and 
Physicist. If we would only ask for God's guidance to find the truth we could 
discover things not even dreamed of on Star Trek. In my casual reading of the 
Bible I have used my imagination to discover things that have been known 
since the begining of time. For example, cloning was done to create Eve from 
Adams rib. If you "scientist" want to discover new and exciting discoveries, 
just read the Good Book, after all, nothing is new under the son.  

Thanks, John P. Hageman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,

I am always astonished when I read posts which imply that science proves
one thing or another. It gets particularly bad when the word "truth" is
used in an absolute sense in the context of science.  Science cannot
prove anything, all it can do is to show, by a carefull application of
the Scientific Method, that a given model makes predictions that are in
agreement with the data, i.e., it models nature whithin known limits.
It is often said that Einstein proved Newton to be wrong.  That is a lot
of nonsense.  Classical mechanics works phenomenally well in its region
of applicability; it always has and it always will.  What Einstein did
was not to prove the classical theory wrong, it was to show that at high
energies and speeds, a better, more general approach is needed.  His two
relativity theories proved incredibly successful in describing phenomena
in these areas, but they are also applicable in the classical area.
However, I would not recommend that these formalisms be used in everyday
mechanics!  I have no doubt that the moment will come when yet another
theory will extend the range now successfully covered by Einstein's
theories.  Einstein himself was quite disappointed when his new General
Relativity Theory did not contain or result in what he called Mach's
principle.  Maybe the GUT theories will eventually do that.  That was
what he was trying to do in the last two decades of this life.  This
short discussion should show that science is a series of  ever better
approximations to nature as we perceive it.  In time, we perceive our
world better and more precisely.  Then we will also need better theories
to explain what we experience.  Einstein himself put his deep insight
into these aspects of science into words when he said: "One thing I have
learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality,
is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we
have."

*************************

Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
Principal
Sigma Five Associates
P.O. Box 14006
Albuquerque, NM 87191-4006
Tel.    505-323-7848
Fax.    505-293-3911
e-mail: faseiler@nmia.com

**************************


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html