100 Most Important Science Books

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Fri Nov 12 02:51:40 EST 1999


the problem has been that folks view everything through the lenses of their own,
individually-unique, experience.

this results in there being only cursory 'understanding' of this-or-that which
is done in-depth, devotedly, by dedicated experimentalists, theorists, and
researchers.

it's a sorrow, not because this-or-that, done by dedicated folks is 'demeaned'
by folks who give it short-shrift, but because, when such happens, the True
worth in the work is tossed on the garbage heap, and the whole of Humanity's
progress into the Light, is forsaken.

it's a 'difficult' problem, because dedicated work requires the dedication, and
individuals cannot recreate such because they've, each, only one life.

i just wish the 'attitude' could change from one of 'being afraid' of what's
merely-unfamiliar, to an understanding that what's merely-unfamiliar is
Treasure-stuff... and that the work of dedicated folks would just be allowed
existence by virtue of its having been accomplished at such great-cost.

from the inside-looking-out, it's all-hillarious stuff, to witness folks who
treat dedicated work as if it's a 'sound-bite' on the evening news, and then
'think' that they've 'sufficient' rationale for making decisions with respect to
the work.

doesn't compute, and yet, the non-computing-stuff Dictates that "which shall
be".

...at the Cost of Humanity's Failing to become that which it, clearly, can
become.

and yet, folks 'wring their hads' with respect to the "impossibilities" inherent
in so-called "human nature".

if it weren't so exceedingly-Tragic, it'd be hilarious.

ken (K. P. Collins)

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:

> Nick Medford <nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk> wrote
> in reply to my:
> > >Adam Smith's 1776 "The Wealth of Nations" surely ought to be on the list,
> > >and if it were my list I'd have Jane Jacobs's 1968 "Cities and the Wealth
> of
> > >Nations" in there as well.
>
> > So you'd accept economics as a science, but not psychology? What
> definition
> > of 'science' are you using?!
>
> Nick,
>
> Not everybody's economics, certainly. Smith, however, hypothesized
> structures, made falsifiable predictions from them, and found his hypotheses
> confirmed.  Jacobs did even better, predicting on the basis of theory that
> the earliest civilization to be found would be an obsidian trading and
> manufacturing site probably in Anatolia. And six years later that's what
> they found.
>
> In the same vein, David Ricardo's Treatise on Taxation, which I think dates
> from about 1740 (don't see where I've put my copy) is even today a standard
> text on the Principle of Comparative Advantage -- a scientific principle as
> solid as gravity, and as much responsible for our wealth today as any other
> piece of paper of the same length in the entire industrial revolution.
>
> > I think it was Karl Popper who said "physics is the only true science- the
> > rest are mere butterfly-collecting", or words to that effect. Not sure
> that I
> > agree, but a point worth considering.
>
> Since when was butterfly collecting not a science?
>
> Popper's challenge to the pseudo sciences was well and good, demanding as he
> did falsifiability of hypotheses. This brought down the claims of a lot of
> cult work like Freud. The problem is that empirico-deducive science is not
> the whole of science. Science can be simply "the intelligent setting in
> order of the facts of experience," roughly misquoting Rutherford (who was in
> fact a brilliant empirico-deductive). Thus taxonomy is a science, even if it
> is nothing but a collection of judgements and consensuses.
>
> Economics has been subject to a lot of attack from the deconstructionist
> literary set, claiming that it is nothing but dogma dressed up in numbers.
> My view is that their attack is mere dogma, undressed even of numbers; and
> that economics does in fact collect, study, make falsifiable predictions,
> and in general meet the criteria of a science by any rational measure.
>
>                                      Cheers,
>
>                                           -dlj.








More information about the Bioforum mailing list