Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@brl-vld
From: gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re:  Consistency in science!?!!?
Message-ID: <15493@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Jan-84 05:46:31 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.15493
Posted: Sun Jan 15 05:46:31 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jan-84 02:22:49 EST
Lines: 24

From:      Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@brl-vld>

One problem is that the idealized "physics" taught in school tends
to dwell on phenomena that can be modeled with simple mathematics.
Phase transitions do not fall into this category.  I don't think
there is any real mystery about the freezing of a supercooled
solution being triggered by sudden release of pressure, but great
care must be taken in correctly applying thermodynamics to the
situation, since principles that are derived from consideration of
slow, reversible change simply do not apply in this case.  Non-
equilibrium thermodynamics should be able to give an unambiguous
statement of what happens, although I don't find the problem
of enough interest to go to the trouble of working it out.

As to the possibility of several "equally correct" answers, that
is a consequence of the multiplicity of chains of reasoning that
can lead to the same result.  What one considers a good
"explanation" also enters into the debate over the best answer.

Finally, Sturgeon's law applies:  90% of EVERYthing is crap, and
that applies to the work of scientists too.  After the recent
creationism noise on this mailing list, it should be apparent
that nobody is filtering the contributions to eliminate bogus
responses (nor am I suggesting that they should).