From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Science vs technology
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:00:04 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1gkmcsINNhuf@emmental.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, by mapac@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr H M Brown):

> 	I'm not certain if this is the correct newsgroup for such a discussion
>  but I'm interested to hear other peoples views.

Me neither, but me too :-)

> 	About a week ago I was involved in an argument ( lubricated by a little
> alchoholic refreshment :-)  ) about science and technology, the basic points 
> discussed were as follows.

I believe that alcohol lowers inhibitions, which might be considered to act
as static friction in an argument, so the analogy of "alcohol as lubricant"
is quite good.  Not sure what it refreshes: not brain cells, for sure.

> 	I personally consider science to be the search for answers, trying to
> discover why things work. This is an ultimately futile attempt since no 
> matter what answers you arrive at the question why can still be asked.

I regard science as a method for destructive testing of models of the real
world, and thus of value in the search for ever simpler and more accurate
models.  The models themselves come from inspiration, intuition or genius.
Models which say "an omnipotent God created everything" are unappealing
because we then have to explain the origins of God (who may nevertheless
exist) (indeed, subatomic physics seem to be getting so complicated - I
was brought up on protons, neutrons and electrons; now there are more sub-
-atomic particles than elements) - that one day God may be a simpler
hypothesis) (every god has his day :-)  [are smileys allowed in this group?]

> 	For example consider Newton's law of gravity, it states that two 
> objects attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses, and
>inversely to their distance apart. Why? Einstien says that this is because they
> warp space-time around them, hence they are able to be seen to act upon each
> other at a distance. Why do they distort space-time ?  and so on and so forth.
> Thus while the Newton gives an excellent description of what is occurring it
> still leaves a host of questions unanswered. In a sense it focuses the area of
> doubt, we know why objects fall to the ground, planets orbit the sun etc IF we
> know why there is this force between them.

Endlessly asking "why" is useful iff it means: is there
a simpler or more general model for this behaviour?  In the case of Newtonian
mechanics, Einstein provided one: F = M.A was shown/claimed to be a special
case of a more general physics, wherein objects effectively get heavier as
they are accelerated, and can never exceed the speed of light.  Newton's
Law gives the slope of the force/acceleration curve at low speeds.  This may
be folklore (how appropriate :-) but: I was taught that Newtonian physics
was used in the design of early Cathode Ray tubes, and the consistent errors
in the trajectories of electrons under magnetic (electrostatic?) forces were
dismissed by engineers, when in fact they provided experimental refutation
of F = M.A (relativistic effects can be significant in a CRT, where electrons
can reach ~ 1/10th the speed of light).  Well, that's what I was told.

Also, didn't Einstein predict discrepancies between clocks taken around the
Earth in opposite directions, and wasn't this subsequently demonstrated
experimentally?  Now *that* comes close to being positive support for a
theory, although I was brought up to believe that we can only refute
hypotheses, not prove them ("Popper"ism).

Hope that's enough folklore content for this group ...
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science