Jump to content

Why Is Physics- the assumed real science.?


Recommended Posts

Since it is visibly easy to see that the universe appears to be nothing more than physical matters,and energies operating in a space-time framework,human experience seems as but of some sense ephemeral, and not real. Those who speak of love and of human emotions, and of beauty,and imagination are dealing with the unimportant or other derivative phenomena while the ones who construct an atomic bomb are dealing with what is real. The human "experience" so now becomes "subjective." Yes, merely subjective, a term for psychologists, who find such most prerogative, meaning unreal and totally unscientific. For it has been determined that 'good' explanations/theories are of concern which reduce to statements about matter,energy, space and time. If psychology so also wants to gain acclaim as also being "real" it must then reduce all its psychological and behavioural ideas to physical data and then to the physical data underlying physiology. But the spiritual conscious psychologists may or may not accept the reality of the physical world, but postulate that a psychological or psychical reality is just as real or even more real than physical reality. Physical reality may be seen as simply a particular manifestation of a psychological reality which is even more real. Actually, there is no need for physical justification of emotional/spiritual reality: for certain, this may be seen as an attachment to the senses which can hinder spiritual progress. What so ditates that the ultimate test of reality is a demonstration that you can build a weapon capable of ending all physical life upon our small mass of rock floating in an endless void of space? I use such an extreme example because it draws a picture so frequently viewed in the world in which we dwell, despite talk about truth and experimental validation.

For the psychologies then, consciousness and experience and life become basic factors, rather then relatively unimportant derivatives in understanding the universe. Occurrences are most always products of probability, not always certainty. Even the most staunch physicist does not deny the probability that we humans are very likely not the apex of intellegence in the vastness known as the void. And, just who would be in best attire should the earth so have a visit from such a higher form of being? The psychologist, with greetings of human unseen and then so unverifiable emotion, or by physical scientists with a greeting of reality in the form of a nuclear display?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mandatory XKCD

 

purity.png

 

 

Fine, next time I have a headache I will just sit, take a pencil and paper, and figure out the √2.

 

Those useless •Sociologists• that learned from cultural studies that groups of peoples as Jews,Wicca,Buddhists et al used the leaves and bark from the willow tree upon special days. Darn useless •Biologists• who figured out that the willow leaves and bark contained salicin,a substance that is like aspirin, and when metabolised it turns into salicylic acid in the human body. Darn them for learning it relieves pain and now have learned it has many other meditative uses as in heart attack prevention. Darn useless •Chemists• who figured it out just how to make salicylic acid into an easy to take form.

 

Bless † the •Math People• for making sure buyers get the right number of aspirin pills in the bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few comments:

 

1. You didn't get the point of the cartoon.

2. The cartoon does not say one field is more valuable or important than the other.

3. It's about the fields of science, and how exact they are. I hope you've heard of the term 'exact sciences'. Well... sociology is not exact. Math is.

4. It's one of the internet's more successful and famous web cartoons. XKCD is brilliant. Check it out (I provided a link already). It's proven scientifically impossible to offend anyone with an XKCD cartoon, so what just happened here is impossible.

5. It was not even meant as an argument against your post. It just seemed on topic... and linking to XKCD is always ok, even when it's not really on topic.

6. In case you were wondering, it wasn't me who pressed the -1 button.

7. Figuring out the √2 is not gonna cause a revolution... but it can certainly be educational. You should try it. Without calculator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. Until today, I thought it was impossible to offend anyone with an XKCD cartoon.

However, Queen of Wands, or Divagating the Future seemed offended.

 

LOL, the cartoon did make me chuckle, then I though hey they are talking about me!

 

If you cannot see humour in yourself then life is going to be just full of frustration and anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few comments:

 

1. You didn't get the point of the cartoon.

2. The cartoon does not say one field is more valuable or important than the other.

3. It's about the fields of science, and how exact they are. I hope you've heard of the term 'exact sciences'. Well... sociology is not exact. Math is.

4. It's one of the internet's more successful and famous web cartoons. XKCD is brilliant. Check it out (I provided a link already). It's proven scientifically impossible to offend anyone with an XKCD cartoon, so what just happened here is impossible.

5. It was not even meant as an argument against your post. It just seemed on topic... and linking to XKCD is always ok, even when it's not really on topic.

6. In case you were wondering, it wasn't me who pressed the -1 button.

7. Figuring out the √2 is not gonna cause a revolution... but it can certainly be educational. You should try it. Without calculator.

 

 

<•>

Cartoons don't offend me, silly. You missed the point of my reply.

↓________↓__________↓

 

1) All sciences are important.

2) Placing sciences upon a continuum in a left to right order parallels the number-line {-} ←——————→{+}

3) Negative is designated as being lower than positive. You wouldn't have a wish to have -$100-True?

4) Some may conclude {for seemingly obvious reasons} that the sciences were placed upon the continuum with a purpose.

5) Those that have concluded that the sciences were so as placed in that manner had an implication.

6) Now,considering that negative is designated as being lower than positive those individuals may perceive the cartoon as implying that sociology and math are polarized. Sociology having the most negative value upon the continuum and Mathematics having the most positive value upon the number line.

7) Negative, as I surely know from this site is regarded as {unfavourable} and positive is regarded as {favourable}.

8) So, I made written a humourous reply to make clear that all sciences are important, for the good of all...

 

See- {ô¿ô}

 

*Exact--Sciences* Does one exist? If so please do tell. I have taken your advice and been trying to reach the √2. I stopped. I took out an old Math book and it read→√2 is imaginary. Imaginary?:o Now imagine that? Then I remembered having taken a course in college titled "Imaginary Numbers." It was a tough course; only 7 or 8 students finished the course. I took it as an elective thinking since I was good in Math this course would be easy and avoiding me write another labourous term paper. Well, I was among the few that stuck out the course. We all got A's.

 

But...?

I can't think of a single thing that is exact while having imaginary components. Can you?;)

 

Ushie ♥

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Exact--Sciences* Does one exist? If so please do tell.

 

Basically this means a science that makes quantitative empirical predictions.

 

Physics would qualify as would chemistry.

 

 

I have taken your advice and been trying to reach the √2. I stopped. I took out an old Math book and it read→√2 is imaginary. I

 

The square root of 2 is not imaginary. It is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically this means a science that makes quantitative empirical predictions.

 

Physics would qualify as would chemistry.

 

<><>

 

 

Ok, that's fine→[quantitative--- empirical]

 

empirical- relying on or based upon experiments.

 

quantitative- capable of being measured

 

exact- true,actual

 

Neither quantitative nor empirical are synonyms of "exact."

 

You knew of what I meant as to the √2. Irrational-Imaginary→ Nothing but a game of semantics as to the point I was declaring. I am not a physicist. The mathematics I studied were of different nature.

I am certain you are not as apt in say; nonparametric statistics. As say binomial distributions that describe outcomes of n independent trials in an experiment. As each trial is assumed to have a + or - outcome. Simplified as ( )--given an assigned x

 

and then..

n x (n-x)

f(x)= x p (1-p)

 

Yes, looks simple but not as easy as it appears. It is but a step in a process. All sciences have their specific tools. Anyway, as now I am no longer practicing psychiatry. And, I never was a research psychologist. I needed to learn complex statistics to gain my degree.

 

☼↔♥

 

Ushie

 

 

 

The square root of 2 is not imaginary. It is irrational.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither quantitative nor empirical are synonyms of "exact."

 

Sure in everyday language. However, there is a definition for what is meant by an exact science. I'll take the definition straight from Wikipedia (not that I usually like to do that!)

 

"An exact science is any field of science capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements."

 

Nothing but a game of semantics as to the point I was declaring

 

There is a big difference between irrational and imaginary.

 

 

Sating that you know more about statistics that I do, which is most likely true, does not alter anything.

 

The square root of 2 is not imaginary. It is irrational.

 

Good, we can move on with no hard feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that, with the exception of mathematics, they differ in in the degree of precision with large overlaps in the fringes. Complex physical models are barely more precise (or predictive) than simple biological ones, for instance.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complex physical models are barely more precise (or predictive) than simple biological ones, for instance.

 

Biology is generally not considered an exact science, though I am sure parts of biology are. Do you see this increasing? I mean, will biology become more and more like physics in the sense that mathematical models will be paramount? I am generally interested in your views on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that, with the exception of mathematics, they differ in in the degree of precision with large overlaps in the fringes. Complex physical models are barely more precise (or predictive) than simple biological ones, for instance.

 

Mathematics is not a science.

 

It differs from science in that validity of a theory or assertion is determined by logic starting from a very few axioms that are assumed as "true" without proof. Experiment has no part in determining mathematical "truth".

 

Science, on the other hand, determines "truth" by means of observation and measurement of physical phenomena. While science, and especially physics, make use of mathematics and mathematical models, the validity of those models is determined empirically, by experiment and observation and not by mathematical consistency or pure logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.