The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently?
*-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach *_____________________________________________* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to > manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that > other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that > fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice > definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the > forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If > you remove the "benefit" part and simply talk about the application of the > forces of nature, is that what you are calling science? > > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote: > >> Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM: >> > It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that >> > theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe >> that? >> >> To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make >> sense of, give meaning to, physics. Unlike some, I give metaphysics >> quite a bit of respect. >> >> To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between "theoretical >> physics" and "speculative physics". In order to be "scientific", a >> theory must be testable. So, as long as you can _also_ describe your >> test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say >> that your theory is scientific. >> >> But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to >> draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that >> your theory is scientific, but not science. It's related to the >> science, but it's not the core constituent. "E = MC^2" is a fine >> thought. But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it >> to make reality different, then it's not science. >> >> The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in >> and breathe and manipulate with our fingers. >> >> -- >> =><= glen e. p. ropella >> A greased up atomic pavillion >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
