Is science quantised? A discussion of hierarchies in science and some consequences

Abstract

Although similar methodologies are applied within different scientific disciplines, each subject is constrained to work within limits imposed by the types of measurements that are possible and the systematic trends discerned within these observations. Ellis has recognised a hierarchy within scientific subjects in which “exact science”, exemplified by physics, has become generally accepted as “more fundamental” than other sciences (e.g. geology). Inferences about geological conditions that yield particular rock types, minerals, etc., must be based on examinations of products of natural changes, now inaccessible to experimental replication and verification. Thus, science subjects do not form a continuum: each is distinctive in both methodology and achievable objectives, discontinuously distinguished in these respects from neighbours within the hierarchy. Science can, therefore, be described as quantised.

We discuss here two instances in which the perceived superior authority of one subject (physics) seriously impeded progress of a “junior partner” (geology). Around 1870, Lord Kelvin calculated the Earth’s age as less than a hundred million years, insufficient time to evolve the existing fauna, including humans. The unknown factor omitted from this calculation was heat evolved by radioactive element decay (physics!), making Lord Kelvin's estimate much too short. Some decades later, Wegener's proposal of continental drift was originally opposed by physicists, though subsequently an agreed physical explanation was found. The discontinuities separating adjoining sciences are, on occasion, difficult to bridge, so that advances in the less exact discipline suffer disproportionately. We conclude, therefore, that in interdisciplinary research, all available observational evidence should be appraised equitably.

Keywords:

• hierarchies in science
• discontinuities between sciences
• the earth-age controversy
• the continental drift controversy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank both reviewers for constructive positive comments which we appreciate for improving the presentation of this article.