Einstein vs. Bohr

BidenPresident said:
Leibniz conceived physical relativity but did not have empirical proof.
Click to expand...

Neither Darwin or Wallace new what the mechanism behind natural selection was and Darwin even said so in On The Origins of Species.

Fortunately a cloistered monk in Austria had already discovered that mechanism at the time On The Origin of Species was published. Unfortunately the world had to wait another 30 some years before his work was published. Then had to wait another 60 years until the double helix of DNA was elucidated.
 
Humans believed Earth was the only planet the sun revolved around.
Then we realized Venus and Mars moved independent of the stars.
A Polish guy modeled our solar system with nothing but his naked eye.
We can credit someone from Athens for asserting that the sun is a star.
Who was it to come up with the idea that each star has at least one planet?
Now we all accept that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there.
All the evidence shows that nothing comes in one, not even the universe.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that or so many categories of theory and experimental evidence overlap that you can’t place a specific phenomena within a specific category of theory.

Much of biology is that way. You can’t understand biology from just a mechanistic (categorical) standpoint. You need to understand a holistic (non-categorical) point of view also because so much of the understanding we have of biology are not described by competing categories but by overlapping categories (theories).

For example you cannot understand fully how a living system works unless you understand how cell theory, evolution, genetics, ecology and homeostasis overlap in when actually determining how a living system works. Which is decidedly non-categorical thinking.
Click to expand...

Good points.

At one point, materialists hoped that all biology and all chemistry could be distilled down to the principles of physics.

Biology strikes me as having emergent properties which cannot be explained by a collection of quarks and leptons.

The fact that the sciences have bifurcated into multiple disciplines over the last 300 years is probably telling us something profound about the natural world: it really cannot be distilled down to mechanistic laws and the standard model of particle physics.
 
Cypress said:
Good points.

At one point, materialists hoped that all biology and all chemistry could be distilled down to the principles of physics.

Biology strikes me as having emergent properties which cannot be explained by a collection of quarks and leptons.

The fact that the sciences have bifurcated into multiple disciplines over the last 300 years is probably telling us something profound about the natural world: it really cannot be distilled down to mechanistic laws and the standard model of particle physics.
Click to expand...

I think the overwhelming evidence supports that conclusion and that’s a big reason why multi-discipline science majors have become very popular.

I know in studying Biology there’s this almos oppressive air, considering the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated of the years, only makes a minute nano-scratch on what is still to be learned. It can really be overwhelming.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the overwhelming evidence supports that conclusion and that’s a big reason why multi-discipline science majors have become very popular.

I know in studying Biology there’s this almos oppressive air, considering the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated of the years, only makes a minute nano-scratch on what is still to be learned. It can really be overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Given the scope of the biological sciences, I am boggled that anyone can acquire what used to be called a generic biology degree.

Biochemistry is about as different from ecology, as organic chemistry is from particle physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top