A Perspective on Science 2 -- Science, engineering and complexity

DrRocket · May 3, 2008

A Perspective on Science 2 -- Science, engineering and complexityIn science the systems discussed in physics texts are generally the most simple (I am ignoring astronomy here).  That makes them amenable to strict control in the laboratory and to clear explanation by a small body of basic principles.  Chemical systems are more complex than the simple systems from which the most fundamental physical laws have been discovered.  Meteorological systems are more complex than the systems of the chemist’s laboratory.  Organisms, biological systems, are more generally more complex than non-living systems.  Ecological and climatological systems combine the complexity of all of the above.Engineers are tasked with applying the laws of science to produce a useful product, usually within a schedule dictated by society or business interests and within a given budget.  In many cases the systems under consideration involve complex interactions that are not completely understood.  Engineers are then forced to use approximations and empirical models and rules that are supported by a body of data, but do not necessarily meet the level of rigor expected before they would be accepted in the scientific community.   Engineering and science are related, but they are distinctly different species.   Some branches of science, because of the state of development must rely on models with a level of rigor similar to that of engineering and in that sense are closer to engineering than to physics.  If meteorologists remained silent until their models matched the accuracy and rigor of, say, classical Newtonian mechanics, we would still be waiting for the first forecast – but it would probably be right.  It is important to recognize the role of complex systems in an area of science, and to recognize the uncertainties that come along with it.  Any scientific assertion must me judged in light of those uncertainties and potential errors.Now, let us suppose that the physicists succeed in producing the “theory of everything”.  Science will not come to halt.  Even physics will not come to a halt. Our ability to know the natural world will not be complete.  Not nearly complete.  The best simple analogy I can give is the game of chess.  The rules of chess are fairly simple, easily comprehended by almost anyone.  However, knowing the rules of the game does not make one a grand master.  From those simple rules spring complex strategies.The natural world is similar.  We already have a pretty good physical explanation and basic mathematical understanding of the fundamental rules that govern ordinary physics, chemistry and biology.  All the forces of our ordinary experience are contained in the combination of quantum electrodynamics and the theory of gravity.  All of chemistry, biology, meteorology and indeed all of engineering are governed by physics for which we know the fundamentals quite accurately.   There are still mysteries. The dynamics of many bodies is not amenable to exact analysis.  We do not fully understand fluid flow, particularly turbulent flow.  There is new chemistry discovered daily.  We have only scratched the surface of applying physics and chemistry to biology, but those applications are advancing rapidly.  Prediction of the weather is more art than science.  If you aspire to a career in science do not despair for lack of things to work on.  Lack of understanding of complex systems abounds.One finds oneself faced with a couple of immediate issues in evaluating assertions labeled as science.  One issue is to understand what it means “to understand.”  Using the model of mathematics one might reasonably conclude that a piece of science is understood when the theory describing it can be traced directly back to the fundamental physical laws that govern the universe, and when that theory fully describes all known observations.  With that definition, with which I do agree, we understand very little.  That is probably an accurate assessment of our level of deep understanding, but one that is not particularly useful except as a spur to further research.On a more practical level, while aspiring to the rigor of the model provided by mathematics, science is currently satisfied with the production of quantitative models that can accurately predict observed behavior in the natural world and which are at least consistent with, if not clearly derivable from, the fundamental laws of physics.  The thought being that if we were smarter we would be able to supply the missing derivation.  It is at this point that science clearly diverges from mathematics – the ability and willingness to accept principles that have not been rigorously connected to the fundamentals through deductive logic.  Mathematics cannot make such a jump and should not.  Science can and must if further progress is to be made.  Engineering relies on such jumps in order to function at all.In progressing and developing new understanding, science makes jumps in strict logic and progresses as a set of successive approximations.  For example, Newtonian mechanics accurately describes the motion of ordinary bodies in our ordinary experience.  It is a triumph of the human intellect.  It is also, very strictly speaking, wrong.  Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity and quantum mechanics all demonstrate that Newton’s theories fail to give accurate predictions at the atomic level, and at the macroscopic level in the face of high relative velocities or large gravitational fields.  This does not mean that one must discard Newton’s theory, only that one must recognize its limitations.  Likewise we know that there are limitations to quantum mechanics and to relativity, and an active search is on for something better and less limited.  Quantum theory and relativity are not to be discarded in their entirety, but only to be constrained so that the limitations do not become important. The important point is that progress comes through observation, careful evaluation of data and refinement of theories.  Established theories are not discarded wholesale, even when radical new theories emerge.  The principle of correspondence applies – new theories must to reduce to established theories for circumstances in which the established theories are known to provide accurate predictions.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MannyPim · May 14, 2008

That's EXACTLY what I was going to say....   <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />Serioulsy though, very well stated !There is an enormous amount of understanding packed into a very clear and concise post. I nominate you for first place in the Relevant Content Density record book.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

chembuff1982 · May 20, 2008

Nice article, but the idea was fairly clear and repetitive throughout the whole article.  Science must change not to defeat prior theories and laws, but to implement them into near standards since they proved valuable in the past with at that time less limited knowledge on the micro and macro scale frame due to technology, etc.  Also the fact of specific science in areas being more generalized to basic needs and focusing only on the necessity.  However, I don't agree with your idea of chess.  Simple rules to follow us, deviation of game play, correct.  Complexities and variances that form yes.  Unpredictable, no.  Chess if a game of if-then-else, logic, patterns of creation and elimination within each move in the game.  Think of a chess game as a diamond shape from beginning to end.  At move one there are many possible combinations that are going to occur, but as you move through the game this combination becomes narrower and narrower.  Science on the other hand isn't exactly like this.  Went you think you have come to the narrow part of ending (smallest deviation) of the diamond it may vector off into a large possibility in a never ending finite manner.  Thus the analogy is not correct in comparasion, but rather a misunderstanding of the game of chess.  If you'd like to debate my belief on science feel free, if you'd like to debate the issue of chess we can play and I can show you how it works.  I'm a not a bad player.  I'm probably rated around 2000 which is considered expert level, but not grand master.  Although I play a grand master from time to time, I've already beat him too and he beats me, point stated, chess logic is not in relation to science logic end of story.  I saw your post on my discussion thanks for the reply, it's always information from others that I process and analyze and use what I can and can the rest.  For we all have something to teach in life, and we all have something to learn and that's the science of life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>

Search

A Perspective on Science 2 -- Science, engineering and complexity

DrRocket

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

chembuff1982

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page