| Books. Science. Tools |
[Jan. 18th, 2004|05:43 pm] |
Freeman J. Dyson. The Sun, The Genome and The Internet. Tools of scientific revolutions. isbn 0-19-512942-3
As a scientist I make a sharp distinction between models and theories. A theory is a construction, built out of logic and mathematics, that is supposed to describe the actual universe that we live in. A model is a construction that describes a much simpler universe, including some features of the actual universe and neglecting others.
A theory is useful because it can be tested by comparing its predictions with observations of the real world. On the other hand, a theory may be useless because its consequences are to complicated to be predicted. A model is useful because its behavior is simple enough to be predicted and understood. On the other hand, a model may be useless because it leaves out tooo much and loses any connection with reality. As we explore the universe, we move out from well-trodden ground into the unknown. On well-trodden ground we build theories. On the half-explored fontiers we build models. p. xiv
Science originated from the fusion of two old traditions, the tradition of philosophical thinking that began in ancient Greece and the tradition of skilled crafts that began even earlier and flourished in medieval Europe. Philosophy supplied the concepts for science, and skilled crafts supplied the tools. Until the end of the nineteenth century, science and craft industries developed along separate paths. It was only in the twentieth century that science and craft industries became inseparably linked. p.8
One of the most important tools of modern science is the computer. The building of computers began as a craft industry. see 1.
Some scientifi revolutions arise from the invention of new tools for observing nature. Others arise from the discovery of new concepts for understanding nature. Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolution., Peter Galison. Image and Logic. p 13
Their books have almost nothing in common. For Galison the process of scientific discovery is driven by new tools, for Kuhn by new concepts. Both pictures are true and neither is complete.
Kuhn saw science form the point of view of a theoritical physicist, taking the experimental ata for granted and describing the great leaps of theoritical imagination that enable us to understand it. Galison sees science form the point of view of an experimental physicist, describing the great leaps of practical ingenuity and organization that enable us to acquire new data.
![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/userinfo-lj.gif) watertank@lj: Stephen Jay Gould seems to be a Kuhnian.
Two of the essential tools required for for the next revolution in biology, the desktop sequencer and the deskotp protein microscope, do not exist. p. 44
watertank@lj: Check if this is still true.
A project is sustainable if it is cheap enough to be the first of a series continuing indefinitely into the future. A project is unsustainable if it is so expensive that it cannot be repeated without major polictical battles. A sustainalbe project marks the beginning of a new era. An unsustainable projects marks the end of the old era. The most famous example of an unsustainable project was the Apollo program. After it was decided that the Apollo program was too expensive to continue, the Apollo hardware was scrapped an the entire space program was forced to make a fresh start. Because it was unsustainable, the Apollo program set back the development of space science by twenty years. p. 35
watertank@lj: a similar approach by the Bush administration. "Pyramids" tend to capture the public's imagination. Grand and useless.
::requirements for a desktop sequencer - sequence ten human genomes every year at a cost on the order of ten thousand dollars each. viral genome in a few minutes, a bacterial genome in a few hours.
::requirements for a desktop protein microscope: determine the three-dimensional structure of protein molecules. Until now, the structures of proteins have mostly been determined by X-ray diffraction, a laborious and expensive process ... Some structures have als obeen determined by nuclear MR spectroscopy, but this technique only works for small proteins. p 42-43
further reading
1. Tracy Kidder. The soul of a new machine.
2. Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
3. Peter Galison. Image and Logic. |
|
|
| Comments: |
"Some scientifi revolutions arise from the invention of new tools for observing nature. Others arise from the discovery of new concepts for understanding nature. Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolution., Peter Galison. Image and Logic. p 13
Their books have almost nothing in common. For Galison the process of scientific discovery is driven by new tools, for Kuhn by new concepts. Both pictures are true and neither is complete. "
As near as I can tell, the process of scientific discovery can be driven by new tools and new concepts, but the key is the willingness and the ability to investigate natural phenomena in the first place, something which must necessarily be built upon pre-existing knowledge. One would be hard pressed to find a discovery or invention that was made completly from scratch by a person or even a group of peoples.
The human ability to learn and discover is usually taken for granted. Brains seem to be "wired" that way.
When you have a chance read "Liars, Lovers and Heroes", by Steven R. Quartz (Author), Terrence J. Sejnowski. A very good intro into today's neuroscience.
| |
![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/imported-profile.gif){kind=small}