Re: Things Formulaic


Al wrote:
> As physicists only seem to be able to communicate in mathematical
terms I
> thought you might be interested in this equation?
> N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL It's the Drake equation and possibly the
most
> discussed of recent times. Not one of the variables can be given a
value.
> Even N* is uncertain as the number of stars in our galaxy is an
estimate.

The Drake "equation" is not a true equation per se. It is rather a
pedagogical device to introduce several cosmological concepts to the
innumerate public.

It is first an effort to relate the facts that there are a large number
of 'factors' that com into play when one tries to *estimate* the number
of planets inhabited by intelligent life in the universe to the
incredibly large number of stars in the observable universe/galaxy.

Secondly, it is an effort to counter the arguments of *certain*
religious fundamentalists (who know little about the laws of
probability) to the effect that life on Earth *must* be unique because
it is so unlikely. [I specify 'certain' fundamentalists because there
are *other* religious fundamentalists who are not mentally super-glued
to any of the various English translations of the first book of
Genesis.

In the sense that true scientific equations (such as E = m*c^2) are
derived from fundamental physical principles (such as the Principle of
Relativity) through checkable logic and according to rigorous
mathematical steps, the so-called "Drake Equation' is *not* a true
equation.

> I watched a TV program recently in which the progress of economists
over the
> last few decades was discussed. They use similar formulas and all
have
> failed, without exception.

All economists' formulae include one element which is entirely beyond
the objectivity, independence, quantitative and predicability
requisites for the independent measurements and quantitative
predictions essential to the empirical sciences - human behaviour. For
this reason, economics, psychology, sociology, and several other
related field which study the nature and effects of human behaviour are
destined never to be fully empirical sciences in the manner of physics,
chemistry, geology, astronomy, and such.

> The question is, Why do they fail? The answer is
> that, contrary to scientific thought; there are some things in this
world
> that do not lend themselves to scientific dismemberment or
repeatability.

Human behaviour.

> This is an axiom. Until this is understood, science will continue to
try to
> dehumanise the rest of us.

Your use of "dehumanise" is an unsubstantiated pejorative. This
reflects a value judgement on your part which you may find impossible
to defend rigorously.

> The idea that only subjects that have been given
> the OK by science are acceptable is narrow minded and dishonest.

The scientific method itself is open-minded and honest. It is also
limited to non-human phenomena.

May I suggest a study of James Lett's essay "The Field Guide to
Critical Thinking":
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

> For
> instance: The utterance that exceptional claims require exceptional
evidence
> is only used in reference to no-scientific paradigm ideas.

There are plenty of "exceptional claims" made for phenomena for which
there is an existing "scientific paradigm," but such paradigms are
frequently ignored by those who make the claims:
http://www.crank.net/
Often 'skeptics' demand evidence (often *any* evidence that supports
the claims will do), but it is never supplied.

Google "free energy" for example. Or examine some of the other threads
on this
NG.

> best

Better would be nice...

> Al

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

.

Loading