Form: Reply

—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.) I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function. So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.

—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.) I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function. So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.