Darwin said there is no Theoretical Biology versus Theoretical Physics
labonnes at csc.albany.edu
Thu Aug 3 11:19:49 EST 1995
In article <DCqoCB.GLz at midway.uchicago.edu>,
Mark D. Garfinkel <mg16 at midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> I think you're raising some false dichotomies here. Physics *is*
>an experimental science, after all; much of its advancement *requires*
>empirical data gathering.
I apologize for not making myself clearer- I didn't mean to strip
physics of the status of an empirical science! I only meant the
weaker point that you assent to below:
> But your points about historical contingency & accident in evolution
And for that reason, the role of _deduction from a small set of basic
principles_ will always be _more limited_ in biology than in physics.
I don't mean to imply either that this approach is _absent_ in biology,
or that it's the be-all and end-all of physics. Thanks for the
opportunity to make this clarification.
Steve LaBonne ******************* (labonnes at cnsunix.albany.edu)
"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens
More information about the Mol-evol