🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <322@hubcap.UUCP> steve@hubcap.UUCP (Steve ) writes:
>I think your confusing the model with "reality."  Science deals with models and
>their predictions.  Philosophy seems to deal with how to view models in
>light of the fact that Nature does as She darn well pleases - with or without
>our understanding.

This is why our science can predict the new discoveries of
superconductivity right?  (sorry, I didn't want to sound too sarcastic,
since we don't have a theory.)

I think science works best at its boundaries (also works it worst).
When we don't really understand things is where the definition of
science begins to fall down (e.g., QM, superconductivity, etc.), it's
not a static definition, so prediction is a desirable, but not necessary
trait.  Here is where the play between theory and experiment come in.
It was a peculiarly American trait that we emphasized experiment to a
fanatic degree (until recently).  Consider many of the past great
American men of science: Franklin, Edison, and even Lawrence.  This
analogy is largely Feigenbaum's rehashed with an addition.

Kuhn has a lesser know work entitled "The Essential Tension" which is
also suggested reading (after Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene