Since I've said so many contrary things in response to David already, I'll first just say that I rather liked this article.-I did have a couple of minor quibbles with it, but nothing major:-1) It could be generalized to all sciences and while the focus on physics is perfectly appropriate given the author's position, I would have liked for that to at least have been noted.-2) I don't know who all the author expected their audience to be, but they seem to have failed to consider how their words might be misconstrued. It's a bit light on pointing out that the "hastily erected shanty-town" isn't a weakness, that's just how science works.

All:-> What does the science of physics really tell us? And what does it not.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/08/04/3285522.htm-A correction to the article:-"Thomas Edison and Alexander Bell certainly didn't. " (in regards to understanding the principles.)-It's true that Thomas Edison didn't know much about theory--that was Nikolai Tesla. Tesla worked for Edison for awhile, and Tesla was always infuriated by Edison's refusal to learn theory. Tesla would prototype on paper, and then build-->a vastly better method as you don't burn money on hundreds of use[less] prototypes. -Upon Tesla's death, Edison actually regretted losing him as a partner years and years back. -The article has things a little backwards... Science's goal never has been and never will be "Divine Truth" as the writer discusses, or an "Ultimate Truth" of any kind, because frankly--these truths don't exist. For many questions, the distance between cause and effect are so vast as to be infinite. The human... desire for ultimate truth is of course a primary cause for the institution of religions of all forms, which then leads us to the obvious conclusion that science clearly aims at something different than religion--something that anyone who's remotely practiced in the method can tell you. -Some other missteps from the author:-"After decades — indeed, centuries — of employing such tricks, physicists have forgotten that they are modelling phenomena, ..."-While tied into my previous paragraph, the author's primary gaffe here is that physicists are firstly extremely aware that they're modeling--science is after all about model building--but the thing that separates science from any other human endeavor is that these models have to be more than pretty math on paper. We have to be able to take that model, make some predictions, and then experiment to determine how well our model matches reality. If the model can inform us that "if X then Y" to the degree of accuracy that it takes in order to say, launch a rocket, or allow a 50-ton plane to achieve flight... then our model must be pretty fucking good, if you excuse my profanity. -The key question to remember in regards as to the limits of science, is at what point do we consider a scientific question closed?-Lets also not forget that as college-educated adults, our minds are vastly different from the minds of high-schoolers, who are not capable (on average) of appreciating these topics in the nuanced fashion that the adult mind can comprehend them. So yes, they are often taught dogmatically. "Why is x^2 x^2?" That's not a question I learned the answer to until college, when I learned mathematical proof and the deeper levels of the subject. -The author betrays ignorance of chaos theory:-"but if an old-fashioned mathematician demanded that a student predict where that ball was heading, the student would inevitably fail."-That's because the behavior of stochastic systems cannot be predicted. You have to be able to run a model hundreds of thousands of times to even understand the average behavior of a system. -"Even something as fundamental as Newton's law of gravity is ultimately an approximation." -Again, (most) HS students (and even non-physics majors in college) cannot perform the math necessary to demonstrate this corner-case. (And... Newton's model of gravity isn't even the accepted norm...) But the goal of first-semester physics is to teach classical physics. Does he suggests his students aren't smart enough to realize that there's more to the story?-His primary criticism here is nested in his final paragraphs, where he attacks the point-model in physics. This is actually an attempt to start injecting String Theory. Because the only physics model that isn't point-based is string-based. His criticism is valid, but as we are all aware that there is no way to test String Theory, it isn't a theory at all. -I still plan on keeping his book on sacred temple geometry in my Amazon wish list... but I wish I could have been his editor here... his piece is WAY off...-[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"