Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Hubris of physicists



1. Jay Gould likes to have fun with his audiences. I think he means what
he says, but he likes to exadurate for effect.
2. Don't forget that physics is based on observation too. I maintain that
science is the fine art of model making. We make observations and then try
to model the observations. In some areas physics may be a little further
along than other sciences, but in the areas where physics is further along it
may be because the models are simpler or the event modeled is more readily
observed. You have to recognize the difficulties in observing and modeling
something like evolution.
3. Physics obviously has a lot to offer other sciences and vice versa.
After all, we're all living in the same world. When my sister went to
college and majored in bio they told her to take physics because the cutting
edge of research required it. When I walked into a geology department, after
earning an MS in Physics and and asked about a chance to do physics outside
I was most welcome, because geology was making the transition from a
descriptive to a quantitative science.
4. The quantitative models of biology and geology rarely show up in popular
literature, but even in paleontology, quantitative models have been developed
which should satisify any physicist. (See for example work by Raup, Fisher
and their colleagues at the Univ. of Chicago.)
5. The current trend seems to be to eliminate math from all intro science
texts. It's just been easier in bio and geo because most of the quantitative
work was recent and had never gotten into the intro texts anyway!

On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Michael N. Monce said:


Here's something different from conservation of energy: As part
of our freshman advising process we meet with our advisees to discuss the
college's summer reading list several times during the year. This year's
list includes the book Wonderful Life, by Stephen Gould. While reading
the book I kept noticing many undisguised put-downs of physics and
physicists. Finally, near the end, Gould admits his reason for writing
the book was to try and rearrange the pecking order of the sciences
through the example of the work done on the Burgess Shale fauna. Gould
indicates that physics is always first, chemistry second, etc, with his
own field of paleontology coming last and in most people's view barely
passing muster as a science. He rails against the Alvarez find of the
comet impact getting more press than the Burgess Shale despite their same
importance in the understanding of evolution; he seems to blame
this on Alvarez being a physicist.

Meanwhile I open up my July copy of Physics Today, and find a
sidebar by Rober Austin indicating that "Having lived with biologists and
biochemists for a number of years, I know damn well that many of them
can't reason their way out of a paper bag, and that they really need the
analytic and experimental gifts of good physicists to help in the really
major conceptual logjams that are facing modern biology."


I would just like some of your opinions on this. Is 'historical
science', as Gould puts it, a valid field ranking the same as physics? Is
environmental biology (a lot of cataloging and observation) science? Is
Austin right? It would help to have a broader view of this from
physicists before I give my own opinion to those poor freshmen.



Mike Monce
Connecticut College