These are very nice articles - thanks.
On 2/22/07, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But are fisheries management and nuclear-waste disposal scientific
> problems? The authors' examples are not really problems of science but
> of the application of science to a practical end (a definition of
> engineering); politics, economics, the legal system and even
> psychology are involved.......
> But the stories do confound science with its applications.
Can you really separate the two (i.e. science and applications)?
Afterall science derives all of its tremendous stature, prestige,
credibility and research dollars because of its applications. A
problem with its applications is a problem for science.
> Poor Lord Kelvin is yet again raked over the coals for having
> calculated the apparent age of the Earth without having accounted for
> natural radioactive decay (then unknown). The anecdote is offered up
> as though it represented a serious scientific failure. It is, instead,
> a nice example of successful science: The best physics of the day
Fair enough. But Lord Kelvin does richly deserved to be raked over the
coals for other quotes, the most egregious one being:
".... when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it
in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure
it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a
meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of
Science, whatever the matter may be."
-raghu.