It is for such inquiries the modern naturalist collects his materials it is for this that he still wants to add to the apparently boundless treasures of our national museums, and will never rest satisfied as long as the native country, the geographical distribution, and the amount of variation of any living thing remains imperfectly known. Finally, in the fifth definition of the scientific method, the facts are to be followed by their proper application to everyday life in society, which means moral motivation through responsibility to society. In other words, a scientist must assume social responsibility for his discoveries, which means that he must have a moral motivation. Frank's conception of the scientific method, the facts should be faced by the proper interpretation of them for society. Returning to the fourth and fifth fingers of Dr. It is about time scientists acknowledge that there is more to the scientific convention than the material aspect. Thus the first three-fifths of the scientific method have a material motivation. The facts are focused by the publication of results again the motivation is material. The facts are filtered by research into the literature the motivation is material. The facts or truths are found by experimentation the motivation is material. Glenn Frank, an eminent social scientist, developed a new statement of the scientific code, which has been referred to as the “Five Fingers of the Scientific Method.” It may be outlined as follows: find the facts filter the facts focus the facts face the facts follow the facts. So long as we do not lose sight of the purely arbitrary and formal nature of our formulae, little harm will be done and it is only fair to state that those who are doing the actual work of progress along Mendelian lines are aware of the hypothetical nature of the factor-assumption. ![]() I realize how valuable it has been to us to be able to marshal our results under a few simple assumptions, yet I cannot but fear that we are rapidly developing a sort of Mendelian ritual by which to explain the extraordinary facts of alternative inheritance. I am not unappreciative of the distinct advantages that this method has in handling the facts. We work backwards from the facts to the factors, and then, presto! explain the facts by the very factors that we invented to account for them. The superior jugglery sometimes necessary to account for the results may blind us, if taken too naively, to the common-place that the results are often so excellently 'explained' because the explanation was invented to explain them. If one factor will not explain the facts, then two are involved if two prove insufficient, three will sometimes work out. In the modern interpretation of Mendelism, facts are being transformed into factors at a rapid rate. ![]() I set up these bald statement as so many Aunt Sallys, for any one to shy at. (f) Entropy is one of the factors of heat, temperature being the other.- Engineering. (e) Entropy may be called the ‘thermal weight’, temperature being called the ‘thermal height.’- Ibid. (d) Entropy (in a volume of gas) is that which remains constant when heat neither enters nor leaves the gas.- W. (c) Entropy is that portion of the intrinsic energy which is not converted into work by our imperfect engines.- Swinburne. (b) Entropy is that portion of the intrinsic energy which can be converted into work by a perfect engine.- Maxwell, following Tait. (a) Entropy is that portion of the intrinsic energy of a system which cannot be converted into work by even a perfect heat engine.- Clausius. My authorities are such books and journals as I have by me at the moment. In despair, I offer your readers their choice of the following definitions of entropy. Even seen attributed to Paul Dirac! In a Physics Forum web post () The Austrian remembers being taught by a QM lecturer who liked using the quote, but added: “there is not much else to do in QM anyway.” I’ve concluded that he didn’t, but it’s hard to prove a negative.” The reasonable conclusion is that this would almost certainly be a misattribution by the so-called Matthew effect to a more-famous person. This was confirmed in an email to the Webmaster, which stated, “Nobody ever sent me any evidence that Feynman had said it. To date (), no response supporting Feynman as a source has ever been received by Mermin. ![]() Mermin has since asked, 'Could Feynman Have Said This?', in Physics Today (May 2004), 10, if Richard Feynman may have used the “Shut up and calculate” retort first, since there were numerous examples giving that attribution on the web. The Copenhagen interpretation refers to quantum mechanics. ![]() In column, 'Reference Frame: What’s Wrong with this Pillow', Physics Today (Apr 1989), 9.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |