On 5/14/02 1:09 AM, "Stephan Kš╬per" <Stephan.Kaemper / Schleswig-Holstein.de>
wrote:

> Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> 
>> Physics wins, 
> 
> Not neccessarily....

Umm, I'm reporting the results of surveys. Do you have other data?


>> which probably surprises no one. Economics universally comes
>> in second. Psychology comes in about the middle. Geology ranks down with
>> Library Science and Computer Science. Astronomy comes in dead last (but then
> 
> ?!? Did you mean Astrology, perhaps.
> Astronomy, applies physical priciples to, well to almost everything outside
> Earth.

No, I clearly meant Astronomy. Astronomers just  don't tend to  publish
falsifiable hypotheses or do experiments. They do make after the fact
theories to explain the phenomena they observe. It has been noticed that the
number of types of entities hypothesized to exist in the universe has
expanded in proportion to the pieces of the electromagnetic spectrum that
instruments have been developed to observe.

It is interesting that the big predictions that have been confirmed by
astronomical observations have all been made by physicists.

So I think of Astronomy as more a branch of natural history.

Astrology, on the other hand, does produce falsifiable hypotheses. They just
happen to be false.

>> I don't think they found a journal for voodoo). Biology is a non-science in
>> general but some sub fields, genetics and micro-biology, are as 'hard
>> science' as physics.
> 
> The more classical parts of biology are no less of a science...

I have worked closely with many classical biologists over the years. They
aren't scientists, believe me.
> 
>> Other disciplines, like chemistry, have many subfields
>> but they tend to all be very quantitative and empirical.
> 
> Huh? Physics is highly empirical, too. How else would you falsify a theory
> if not by an experiment?
> How else would you come to the conclusion that a new theory is neccessary if
> not by experiments yieling results not fitting the forecasts of a theory?

I think we are agreeing here. I was saying Physics is the most empirical and
Chemistry is very close.

> I don't think this discussion is too terribly useful...
> 
>> ...so I'm just assuming that he follows the conventional
>> pattern for physicists.
> 
> .... which, btw, are as diverse, contradictory and somtimes _very_ strange.
> They are opinions, expressed in terms of very personal views (call it
> 'theory of science' if you like...)

I'm hoping it's more than that. If it's just gut feel or prejudice, it's not
very interesting.
-- 
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that,
you've got it made. -Groucho Marx