Автор сообщения: Равиль
Дата и время сообщения: 05 August 2008 at 18:15:06:
В ответ на сообщение: А вот еще что я надыбал в интернете .
A more interesting question along the same path is whether science itself has abandoned the traditional experimental basis for theories. Many scientists hold the opinion that the newest theories (in particular the highly publicized "string theories") lack any possibility of experimental verification and have effectively become metaphysics or religion. We find a genuine issue here, which the academicians will take up in detail [later in the book].
Along the same path lies the question whether history (or even economics) can be considered a science. When a scientist requires that a theory be experimentally testable, he or she implicitly demands that a result be reproducible, which requires many experiments. History, by definition, deals with events that have occurred only once. Politicians frequently argue that "massive nuclear deterrence prevented a third world war." The statement certainly has a peculiar ring to it. The event (the absence of WWIII) is unique. The experiment cannot be reproduced. It is therefore unclear whether one can assign definite causes to the event, in particular to an event that never took place.
Conceptual difficulties arising from unique events are rampant in cosmology, the branch of physics that deals with the origin of the entire universe. If "universe" truly means "everything" this is an event that can have taken place only once. Yet cosmologists frequently make such statements as, "the odds of the universe being created in a completely uniform manner are infinitely remote." If the universe was created only once, can any meaning be attached to such a statement?