Climate Change Killed Dinosaurs, Scientist Says

[Chuck]

He is trying to say, as far as I can tell, that there is no consensus in biology on the truth of evolution because there is still debate about the history of species.

Thats not what I said, read again.

My point was that regardless of how the debate about how dinosaurs go extinct, whether it be from an asteroid impact or gradual climate change or both, it wouldn't make evolution any less factual. That's why I said this is a trivial topic.

That is just one example for nature of evidence.

As for the meaning of exact science.

It means a science in which its laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression with precession.

The following passage might make it more clear:

 

[The Adogmatist]

I'm sorry, but the passage you quoted did not make it any clearer for me what an "exact science" is and how physics is more "exact" than all other sciences. The possibility of assessing a numerical error between prediction and result is a property of quantitative experiments as opposed to qualitative experiments. All sciences have both qualitative and quantitative experiments or observations. Would it not be more precise to label it "quantitative science"?

As an example, Newtons law about the perpetuated motion of entities which are not influenced by a force is a qualitative statement about physics. An hypothesis about decreasing fertility in fish which are exposed to environmental toxins is a quantitative statement about biology. From how I read Mr. Booksteins commentary, this should make biology an "exact science" and physics an "not exact science" in this particular example, and then they would change status in other examples. I'm not sure how useful this concept is if it changes from example to example, and so I must assume that I have not understood your explanation correctly.

Could you please show me where my understanding of the concept of "exact science", as laid out here, is different from what you meant? And also why this kind of "exact science" would me more useful than a "not exact science"?

 

[Chuck]

I'm sorry, but the passage you quoted did not make it any clearer for me what an "exact science" is and how physics is more "exact" than all other sciences. The possibility of assessing a numerical error between prediction and result is a property of quantitative experiments as opposed to qualitative experiments. All sciences have both qualitative and quantitative experiments or observations. Would it not be more precise to label it "quantitative science"?

As an example, Newtons law about the perpetuated motion of entities which are not influenced by a force is a qualitative statement about physics. An hypothesis about decreasing fertility in fish which are exposed to environmental toxins is a quantitative statement about biology. From how I read Mr. Booksteins commentary, this should make biology an "exact science" and physics an "not exact science" in this particular example, and then they would change status in other examples. I'm not sure how useful this concept is if it changes from example to example, and so I must assume that I have not understood your explanation correctly.

Could you please show me where my understanding of the concept of "exact science", as laid out here, is different from what you meant? And also why this kind of "exact science" would me more useful than a "not exact science"?

In short, it is a science whose laws capable of giving mathematical precision between a hypothesis predictions and experimental results.

The concept is not easy to grasp at first because there are subtle differences and I can see where the confusion is coming from. But one thing I should make it clear is that everything in physics is not exact science and somethings in biology do fall under exact science. But when physics is considered an exact science it means that physics by nature in general is exact science even though there are portions that are not. It is opposite for biology.

Perpetual motion issue I think is not exact science, because it is very difficult, even if possible, to make experimental tests for it. Theoretical physics is not considered exact science, but there is difference of opinion, which is out of scope here.

Now for the decreasing fertility in fish which are exposed to environmental toxins, it maybe or it maybe not, I need to think about that. But genetics and pharmacology are under exact sciences. Your example about the effect of toxins would come under pharmacology, so I guess, it is an example of exact science.

Btw, "exact science" is not my concept, biology in general is not considered an exact science. Quantitativeness has its part in it, but it is not exactly that. For example, predicting hurricanes can be considered quantitative, but still it is not exact science: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/hurricanes/hurricanes-prediction.html

 

[The Adogmatist]

Btw, "exact science" is not my concept, biology in general is not considered an exact science. Quantitativeness has its part in it, but it is not exactly that. For example, predicting hurricanes can be considered quantitative, but still it is not exact science: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/hurricanes/hurricanes-prediction.html

Than you for your reply. I must admit that I still have problems understanding exactly how the concept is used, if it is used the same by all who claim to understand it, and exactly how useful the concept is in itself. What value does the concept of "exact science" add, that is not covered by the concept of qualitative/quantitative science?