jump to navigation

How Do Physicists and Biologists Think Differently? September 26, 2006

Posted by healthyself in Bioeffects, Biological Activity, Biological Effects, Bioscalar Energy, Blogroll, Cell phone industry, Cell phone safety, Cell Phones, Communication, Decision Making, Definitions, Electromagetic pollution, electromagnetic, Electromagnetic Field, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, Emergency Medicine, EMF Research, EMF's, EMR, Environment, Epidemiologists, Financial Considerations, Frequencies, grams of tissue, Health related, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, HOuseholds, Integrative Medicine, Interdisciplinary, Legal Issues, LF, Lifestyle, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Magnetic, Medical Research, Microwave exposure, mobile telephones, People in Laboratories, Public Policy, Pulsed Radiation, Quantum Physics, Quantum Vacuum, QV, Radio Waves, Research, Research Needed, Risk of Disease, Safe Levels, University.
trackback

Thought-Styles….there are two fundamentally different approaches to doing science in the 1990s – two distinct scientific thought-styles. In the physical thought-style, the goal is to explain an observation by showing that it is compelled by basic physical laws or at least by phenomenological equations. In this thought-style, a scientific fact is a deduction from a relevant covering law made in the context of particular assumptions. The concept of causality does not occupy a central position in the physical thought-style because the necessary and sufficient cause of the observation to be explained – a force – is known in advance of the explanation.

In contrast, in the biological thought-style, the goal is to establish a scientific fact. In this thought-style, a scientific fact is a but-for cause of an observation established using orthodox measurement methods and appropriate statistical techniques. In the biological thought-style, covering laws are not employed and linkage with covering laws, even in principle, is not required as a precondition for accepting observations as valid. Scientific facts are generalizations that admit of exceptions.

… two distinct thought-styles were utilized to produce scientific facts applies equally well to all subsequently published issues of Science that I have considered…each report in any issue of Science that involves formal reasoning can be classified into one (or a combination) of the thought-styles described here. It can permissibly be concluded, therefore that there presently exist two distinct valid methods for producing scientific knowledge. Consequently, the scientific facts of the physicist and the biologist are fundamentally different objects. This analysis makes clear – I think for the first time – that there presently are two distinct pathways by which observations can rise to the level of scientific fact…. failure to distinguish between the thought-styles and to identify the applicable thought-style accounts, in part, for the present controversy regarding whether powerline EMFs affect human health.

http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Point1/Point1.html

It’s not either/or, folks. We need to put our heads together.

s

Advertisements

Comments»

1. nwqfk - October 29, 2009

I would like to produce a NEW ‘Flexner Report’ on the sorry state our modern mainstream medical ‘industry’.

Considering the track record on the mortality rates of patients vs the big money feeding this beast, it would seem one would stand a better chance being teleported back to the medical era of the original Flexner Report.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: