At 05:22 1/15/99 EST, you wrote:
>
>> You can also turn the argument and say, that, after all, 90% of all
>> historians still work on pre-1945 science, whereas 90% or more of all
>> science in world history has been produced after 1945
>
>I am a bit baffled by one of the premises in Dr. Soderqvist’s note. “90% of
>all science” What is this measurable stuff which can even be divided into
>percentages? I didn't know a science *stuff* had been discovered.
>
>John van Wyhe
>Cambridge
I'll take a shot at this one.
1) The essence of 'science' is repeatable physical experiment
butressed with plausible theoretical models.
2) In order to repeat an experiment one needs a 'recipe'.
3) Science 'recipes' are captured in reviewed journals and books.
4) The quantity of such recipes can be counted.
5) A graph of such counts shows an exponential increase.
6) A characteristic of exponential growth is that a time can be
associated with such a function which equates the quantity of
items enumerated before such time without limit, to the quantity
enumerated in a limited time AFTER such time.
This concept is sometimes used in terms of a 'doubling time'.
I believe that cites are the measure of 'science stuff' as commonly
understood, and I don't suppose that van Wyhe is entirely unfamiliar
with this concept, ugly though its ramifications are.
Brian
brian whatcott <[log in to unmask]>
Altus OK
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|