Patrick Reany wrote in message
om...
Taken from:

FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS

BY ROBERT BRUCE LINDSAY, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics, Brown University

AND

HENRY MARGENAU, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics Yale University

NEW YORK
JOHN WILEY & SONS, Inc.
LONDON: CHAPMAN & HALL, LIMITED, 1936




From the poster: Note the role that conventionalism and agreement play
in the founding of a science by these authors. Why do the authors
define physics as they do: the "task of physics as of all science is
found in the coherent description of experience"? Do you hgave a
better definition or characterization of physics? Is the notion of the
"material world" really problematic? What would the realist say? What
would the instrumentalist say?


{snip the rest}

It's all irrelevant. Science is the application of the scientific method.
Nothing more or less.

Anyone who wants to come up with their own, personal approach to the
universe is welcome to do so. But they may not appropriate the word,
'science.'

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas