Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
As many of you know by now, I see all other interpretations of quantum mechanics as taking the science of QM and attaching a scientifically useless component of magical and untestable thinking. To underscore this, I would point out that to my knowledge, there is not one single experiment that can actually be carried out scientifically that distinguishes any of these "interpretations" one iota. So why would anyone trained to think like a scientist believe that adding arbitrary flagellum to one will make it "more right" than it was without?
|
I agree -- and I would add that the two different disciplines have two different ways of arriving at the "truth" and they don't mix well. Another example is religion and science. What operates as a "truth" for religion is something "untestable" for science (we can't run an experiment to have a specific deity show up, announce his/her/its name, and perform a miracle on command while we measure its/her/his strength, height, and specific powers.) While some fields do mix in a very broad sense (philosophy and religion), others are a poor match.
One of the subdisciplines I study (Behavior Analysis) uses a sort of "moving average" to determine how effective a treatment is. You couldn't use those methods on a photon to predict anything (because different people react to the same treatment very differently) -- and because you're dealing with individuals and behavior. BehAnal and physics is a pretty poor mix.
BehAnal and psych or anth is a pretty decent mix, though.
I'm with you on the "let's not mix incompatible ways of arriving at truths" as a means of dealing with a discipline. Philosophy would fare very poorly if we made it stand up to the average standards used by biologists... and vice-versa. And physics and philosophy are an even poorer mix.