I would say that the product of the scientific enterprise is knowledge. If that's the case, then the question becomes how one expresses that knowledge. Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't any expression of knowledge imply a language?
*-- 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 11:19 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
