NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/math/10498

Text File | 1992-08-21 | 4.0 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: sci.math
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!access.usask.ca!skorpio!choy
From: [e-mail] (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: An advertisement.   ;-)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: choy@skorpio (I am a terminator.)
Nntp-Posting-Host: skorpio.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:41:17 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Taylor) writes:
|> I warmly recommend a recent article that appeared in the "New Scientist".
|>
|> Although it has more to do with science in general than math in particular,
|> a recommendation will not be out of place here, as the article concerns the
|> issue of how far science and math may go toward explaining "everything".
|>
|> It is....
|>            "WILL SCIENCE EVER FAIL"
|>             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   by Peter Atkins; New Scientist, 8 Aug. '92
|>
|> It is written partly in reply to a (slightly) anti-scientific article appearing
|> the week before by Mary Midgley. (I only read the first paragraph or so of
|> this earlier article, but I may go back and complete it now!)
|>
|> IMHO,  Atkins' article is a must for all who are interested in the limits of
|> scientific endeavour, or in the ongoing conflict between science and religion.
|>
|> Warning: those of a religious disposition may find the contents offensive !
|> =======     To whet your appetite I will offer a few quotes.
|>
|> "There is room for ... fear, for those who seek to found their lives on the
|>  vapourous precepts so favoured by religion...."
|>
|> "Religion claims total understanding, but fails to deliver anything but
|>  sweet words; science claims cautious progress, and is able to demonstrate
|>  success at every stage."

Don't straight lines meet at infinity? But who gives a fiddler's fiduciary
about geometric analogies?

|> "Happily, science will continue despite the cantankerous efforts of
|>  philosophers to thwart its progress. As it does so philosophers will have
|>  to strike camp every few years and rush along to comment on what has been
|>  achieved by scientists working in the fray of discovery."

What if someday philosophers prove that all the fundamental discoveries
of physics made so far are complete and try as the scientists might no
more fundamental discoveries can be made? What is the goal of science?

Suppose that philosophers do not try to thwart the progress, but we all
agree to use whatever means to achieve as much scientific knowledge as
possible. To that end I propose that scientific work be aided by
machines. I fear though that the process will run amok as machines make
errors that affect the global status quo. Even if machines don't,
scientists may. To avoid coming to a nasty end, I propose that science
be carried out big time on far away places such as Mars or Venus, and
that we focus now on getting there and getting going so that we may
benefit soon from the freedom to experiment that the vast separation
of space gives us.

|> Needless to say, not all of the article is so feisty. Although not technical
|> in content, it is a thoughtful and authoritative account of the scientific
|> endeavour of humankind;  an optimistic review, and prognosis, of what has been
|> and may be achieved by science, backed by mathematics.


|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>             Bill Taylor              [e-mail]
|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>  Free will - the result of chaotic amplification of quantum events in the brain.
|> Galaxies - the result of chaotic amplification of quantum events in the big bang.
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been written by the will of the universe.

Henry Choy
[e-mail]

Unite, world, and reach for the stars.
Grab with both hands, but don't burn yourselves.