[Hans Blom, 950912f]
(Bill Powers (950910.1820 MDT))
I contend that physics has succeeded not because its subject
matter is easy but because its standards for admitting
statements into its structure are set very high. I have asked
several times, and ask again: if physics is easy and the study
of living systems is hard, why do physicists use advanced
methods of experimentation and mathematical analysis when
behaving like professional physicists, while psychologists do
not do the same when behaving like professional psychologists?
May I offer an additional point of view? Physics has succeeded
because physics does not try to understand. It is content with
having theories and formulae that are descriptive and that make
accurate predictions. Take, as an example, quantum physics.
Everyone agrees on the formulae. Yet there are (at least) two
widely divergent "interpretations". One says that the
uncertainty, that all agree on exists, is due to our inaccurate
knowledge -- i.e. our models cannot go beyond a certain
precision. The other says that the uncertainty is inherent in the
real world, that our models are fully accurate but must, of
course, this real uncertainty. Yet physicists continue to
cooperate even if their interpretations disagree.
Why? The interpretation does not matter. Whether the one is true
or the other -- or a third one -- makes no difference at all IN
PRACTICE.
Greetings,
Hans