Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrd
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.
|
And probably will be for a long time, maybe even forever. Perhaps there are some areas of useful overlap, like brain function during certain types of environmental stimulus, but the questions you are apparently interested in might never be usefully addressed that way. There's nothing that needs "fixing" in that situation.
Quote:
|
I'm with you on the "let's not mix incompatible ways of arriving at truths" as a means of dealing with a discipline.
|
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, thank you for putting it that way.
Quote:
|
And physics and philosophy are an even poorer mix.
|
Which is quite ironic, for they both started out in the same bed. I'd say the falling out came about the time of Galileo, and it's been "irreconcilable differences" ever since. Some today seem to have a goal of reuniting them, but I see them as like kids who can't bear to recognize their parents have "grown apart". Not that they can't still be friends-- some of Einstein's inspirations came from philosophy. But the science he actually did was pure quantifiable verifiable science, and Michelson-Morely had more to say than Mach.