Un-scientific definitions
Russell Garber ( (no email) )
Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:20:06 -0500
What is it with science and the un-scientific definitions they use? When we
think of science, we think of facts, but too often in science the definitions
used are not based on facts. I realize that a lot of areas in science are
theoretical, but unfortunately the definitions do not always reflect this. In
many cases we are given multiple definitions for the same term, that have
different meanings, and when the definition is the best theory (and therefore
not a true definition), a definition is often given without the word theory
being used. I see this as a huge problem. Take the thread on the geomagnetic
poles for instance. It reminded me of the movie "The Edge". If you saw the
movie, then you know that the people in the movie where trying to find out
which way was South. One of the characters in the movie made a compass using a
paper clip and silk, and determined South was the direction that the clip
pointed when sitting on a leaf that was floating in a still pool of water.
When asked how he could be sure, the character remarked that the needle had no
choice, it had to point South. Again, if you saw the movie, this character
was supposed to be very intelligent and thus the statement appeared to be made
as a fact and not a mistake. Now, while watching this, I am thinking, wait a
minute, a compass points North (again I am speaking of the directions North and
South), how could Hollywood make such a mistake as this in a movie. Anyway,
without going into that any further, regardless of which is true, you can see
where the confusion comes in. People do not want to change definitions that
people are used to in fear of further confusion, but I personally would rather
have a little confusion now, in an attempt to get CORRECT definitions, as it
will make a difference somewhere down the road. Another example is the
definition of a Photon. I have read four different definitions that had
completely different meanings thus making all of the definitions useless (I
would have rather seen "unknown" as the definition, then four different
definitions). It makes one wonder how they can come up with such complex
theories, when they cannot even agree on a definition for key players in their
theories. Not to mention the fact that they often leave out any anomalies they
come across because they cannot explain them even though they consistently show
up (Maxwell's equations for example). Such reckless use of definitions
(including refusal to update them based on new evidence), only further hinders
our understanding of complex ideas used in such theories and the ideas used by
inventors. One possible reason why a lot of the inventions cannot be
duplicated, may be due to problems with vague, mis-understood, or incorrect
definitions used to describe some process in the invention (even if we
understand the definition, the inventor may not have). We could probably list
endless examples, but you get the idea. This problem has bothered me for a
long time, and recent posts have further brought this problem out into the
open. I am done complaining about it as there is probably not much we can do.
The only thing I would suggest is that any inventors or theorists out there,
please explain exactly what you mean (using clear and easily understood
examples if possible) , even if you think that it is already clear what you
mean, in an attempt to avoid such confusion. If there is any confusion, then
please state what definition you are using for the unclear term.
-Russ
"If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch"
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------