Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

cold1 · 09-05-2010, 13:59

I am not qualified to debate Hawkings thoeries, but the people I work with/for are. Theology comes up from time to time. There is a great divide between the Physical sciences and Biological sciences. On the Physical sciences side there is an abundance of non believers, on the biologies side there is an abundance of Intelligent design. This divide has been attributed to a few items of difference between the two fields.

In the physical sciences most of the phenomina that is oberved has hard physical boundaries, IE.. "if this, then that". These postulates end up being repeatable and quantifiable. There are exceptions that IMHO prove that some of this form of science is consentual BS on a grand scale.

In the biological sciences there are few hard and fast rules on complex systems. The beats are hedged with statistical data. Even simple systems will throw a curve ball every now and then. In the biological sciences you will find PhDs that will admit that for as much as they know they are still in their infancy of understanding (these have my admiration).

I will give a couple of examples to think about.
Until about two years ago it was it was believed and taught that no cosmic xray burst could possibly last for more than 30 seconds. This had been proven time and time again mathmatically. Then one day and cosmic xray burst was observed that lasted for several hours.

As a noted MD, PhD and general expert in his area of expertice once told me "its called practicing medicine for a reason, we still cant get it right 100% of the time"

09-05-2010, 13:59	#20
cold1 Guerrilla Join Date: May 2006 Location: NC Posts: 143	The great Divide I am not qualified to debate Hawkings thoeries, but the people I work with/for are. Theology comes up from time to time. There is a great divide between the Physical sciences and Biological sciences. On the Physical sciences side there is an abundance of non believers, on the biologies side there is an abundance of Intelligent design. This divide has been attributed to a few items of difference between the two fields. In the physical sciences most of the phenomina that is oberved has hard physical boundaries, IE.. "if this, then that". These postulates end up being repeatable and quantifiable. There are exceptions that IMHO prove that some of this form of science is consentual BS on a grand scale. In the biological sciences there are few hard and fast rules on complex systems. The beats are hedged with statistical data. Even simple systems will throw a curve ball every now and then. In the biological sciences you will find PhDs that will admit that for as much as they know they are still in their infancy of understanding (these have my admiration). I will give a couple of examples to think about. Until about two years ago it was it was believed and taught that no cosmic xray burst could possibly last for more than 30 seconds. This had been proven time and time again mathmatically. Then one day and cosmic xray burst was observed that lasted for several hours. As a noted MD, PhD and general expert in his area of expertice once told me "its called practicing medicine for a reason, we still cant get it right 100% of the time"
cold1 is offline