Re: What are "principles" in science?

[Mark Sylvester <msylvest@XNET.IT>]

For some reason, Jack's response didn't make it to this neck of the woods,
but I've received it thanks to Robert Cohen's further remarks hope it was
the full text.

> On Monday, June 07, 2004 8:01 PM, Jack Uretsky wrote:
>
> >         I don't know anybody involved in the active pursuit
> > of physics, biology, chemistry or the like who would support
> > this so-called "traditional picture".  Do you have some
> > support for your characterization?  And why is it important
> > to have such categories?

Practitioners of science are usually not philosophers of their subject!
This "traditional" view is mostly Baconian, with the insight from Popper
that the origin of a theory involves something more than observation and
inductive reasoning. I don't know what support I should provide for
distinguishing theories from empirical laws beyond referring doubters to a
dictionary - I'm not proposing something different from standard usage
within scientific circles. I am cautioning against the widespread further
use of "theory" in common English to denote something uncertain or
tentative as in "...that's all very well in theory". Indeed, scientific
theories *are* tentative (Kuhn notwithstanding), but this is not the main
point about them. Their explanatory power is their main point. Theoretical
physics does not mean tentative physics.

The categories are important if we are interested in the philosophy of
science, and constitute a step on the way to a fuller understanding of what
we are about. At least one textbooks that I've seen propagates the story
that Laws become Theories (or is it the other way round), in an
introductory chapter on the nature of physics. By comparison, this is an
unhelpful and misleading characterization.

Don't get me wrong: I am by no means claiming that this is all there is to it.


> > I have noted that beginning elementary and high school
> > teachers, when unsure of their subject matter, tend to
> > emphasize names and definitions. I think that i9 because the
> > leaqrning of names and definitions is the easiest kind of
> > teaching that can be readily measured.  Standardized tests
> > are easy to construct for such purposes.

Not sure where you're coming from here, Jack. Can't remember if I did this
when I was a beginning teacher - it was too long ago. I will say that in
the comment on my marking of International Baccalaureate scripts last year
I was criticized for being too soft on definitions!

Mark


Mark Sylvester
UWCAd
Duino Trieste Italy