Mr. Gerck,

There is not ''demarcation'' of the physics. Physics, like the Chemistry, biology, Medicine is a natural science. I inclue to them mathematics, as well.

There is rather unbalanced funding within the framework of the fields of the physics and within the natural sciences.

For example, the German Basic Law protects explicitly areas 'biology' and 'medicine'. Therefore the funding to them is permanent and guaranteed by the Government. However, as is well known the development, in particulat, of, medicine is impossible without evelopment of physics and chemistry. In fact, 80 % of the medications are synthetic chemistry.

All this is a result of a lack of understanding from the site of politics worldwide about the fundamental role of the Physics and the Chemistry for the development of all these branches under protection such as medicine, biology, pharmacy, food industry and agricultural sciences, etc.

Essentially, this means bad level of education in the secondary schools, because of we cannot expect from the site of anybody of the policy to undertand in detail the role of any science. The education of more than 90 % of the people in the policy classes is out of the fields of the natural sciences.

It seems from a panoptic viewpoint that physics demarcation has almost stopped evolution. Both physics and its complement in particular, and science and its complement in general, conjointly form what is widely known as "literature". Of course, I am not referring here to any kind of "literature demarcation".

Mr. Gerck,

Accounting for your affiliation I should mention, that our discussion not only is closely related to education, funding for research and Law, but it is even directly connected with. This is also valid to the correspondence between 'academic position - scientific contributions-Law' here. Because of, to the topic of your question there are deffinitions and terms.

So, first of all, let us focus on your posting:

…”philosophy of the physics”...

This term, like the term “philosophy of the chemistry”, because of, there is “philosophy of the chemistry” as well as, does not represent term from the Physics and, respectively, from the Chemistry. All these terms come from the Philosophy. The later science, however, does not belong to the so–called “natural sciences”. But, by contrast to, many more so–called “sciences”, for instance, sport “science”, social “science”, etc., the Philosophy is a “Science”.

Thus, how to distinguish between “natural” and “non-natural” sciences; and how to distinguish between ‘science’ and a ‘nonscientific’ discipline? The difference is in the theories of the different sciences, which are well established.

The term “Theory” means a system of interconnected concepts, which explain and describe the reality. Under “reality” is understood a broader meaning of the word, however, like, for example, a common social and/or phenomena in the nature. On the other hand, the term “Science” means knowledge about the reality, but the reality, as is mentioned lastly is expressed using two completely different approaches depending on the “natural” and “non-natural” character of the corresponding scientific fields.

In the “natural sciences” under “theory”, there is understood, that the system of concepts should be evidenced empirically. Or a “theory” should be empirically testable. “Empirical” means, that the evidences are based on experimental measurements, which, in parallel, should be reproducible, furthermore, independently. On the base on experiment, in the fields of the natural sciences there is confirmed unambiguously given theory as a “true” or a “false” one.

On the contrary, “theory” in “non-natural” sciences, describes views and understanding of the common phenomena, which hardly can be classified as “true” or “false” one unambiguously, furthermore, empirically. In these sciences, the classification “false” or “true” is based on other theory.

As can be seen from the short description above, the characterization of the social work as “science” or the sport as ‘’science’’, for example, does not reflect the essence of the social activity (tasks) or the tasks in the sport, because of, they do not represent neither “natural” nor “non-natural” sciences. First, the work in these areas has observable character and/or is strictly associated with the individual. On the base on a selected set of observations there could be carried out any theoretical description of a given social phenomenon. However, on the one hand, it cannot be evidenced experimentally, and, on the other hand, it cannot be processed statistically. At this point, there is a second: Why? The term “experiment” means a set of tasks involving both theoretical and practical design, including statistical data processing of the results from these activities. However, the experiments with individuals are forbidden according to the Law. The “social experiment”, therefore, also represents an experiment. Therefore, it is more than clear, that the “social work” or the work associated with the education in sport, does not represent natural science. Now, why it does not represent “non-natural” science, as well? Because of, according to the aforementioned terms, there should be a concept explaining the reality associated with a common phenomenon. However, the individuals are different and any individual is unique, and thus there is unable adequate conceptualization associated with any common phenomenon. Essentially under ‘’conceptualization’’ there is understood a view based on statistically representative set of subjects, in these tasks. Concepts based on an individual are inapplicable to a common phenomenon

For example, the concepts of “cannibalisms”, “exhibitionisms”, pedophilia”, and relating, are theoretical concepts associated with the reality in a broad sense. The latter theoretical concepts, as you could expect, do not represent part of the social work.

Let us now describe the connection of my later posting with the secondary education, Law and funding to the science, which from the text above, I think, that it becomes clear. The definitions and terms associated with ‘’what is science?’’, ‘’what is non-science’’, ‘’what is technical work’’ are even more closely related with the scientific Funds and the Law. Even, very frequently they are explicitly related within the framework of the Laws.

Nevertheless, let me first answer to the question: Why the problem associated with ”philosophy of the physics” is joined with the Secondary Education? Because of, namely in the Secondary School the pupils are recognized with different areas of the knowledge, connected with the philosophy, sport, mathematics, natural sciences, etc.

Second, why there is link between scientific Funds and our discussion? Because of, the scientific funds are associated with the development of the science.

Third, why our discussion is connected with the Law? Because of, the Higher Educational Institutions are public ownership, which is controlled by the Country (der Staat), not by the Government (die Regierung).

As you can see there is very easy to asses in a work in the fields of the natural sciences, in general, and in the Physics, in particular: What represents scientific novelty; what represent scientific concept; what is nonscientific concept; and what is technical work?

Further, theories of philosophers are not connected with the scientific contributions to the Physics, because of, the later discipline is a natural science. It is determined on the base on concepts of the natural sciences. The research is highly specialized, highly informative to the Society, with technical aspects, and empirically testable. Because of, the audience is highly specialized.

Towards the nonscientific disciplines, they are out of the areas of the Physics and the Philosophy.

I hope, that now you can understand the difference in a “natural science”, a “non-natural science” and “nonscientific” disciplines.

Mr. Gerck,

The topic to your question is associated with: Distinguishing between “science” and “nonscience”.

My commentaries are in the topic to your question. They reflect achievements of scientific disciplines, which have already provided answers to your question. In addition there are available corresponding definitions and terms. These definitions and terms are already implemented in the “Management of the Higher Education” and the “Management of the Science”, for example, and not only.

If you can contribute to further understanding of the difference in “science” and ‘nonscience”, the communicative practice in such cases is: “the publication”. Via the publication you purport to describe adequately the difference in “science” and “nonscience”, in general, and/or “physics” and “nonphysics”, in particular. It becomes an object of a public discussion, where your arguments on assertion against the known deffinitions/terms, and more, can be evaluated.

If you do not like the current rules in the science, which by the way are valid to your University as well as, you can leave the position. Let us do not mislead the Society. Nobody do not obligate you to work with them.

Nevertheless, can you provide link/s to your contribution/s to, for instance, “Philosophy of the science”, “Policy in the Science”, “Management of the Higher Education”, “Management of the Science” and/or any other area associated with the topic to your question? It is self–evident that the topic is an object of a multidisciplinary interest.

In addition, RG is a public forum for research and there are discussed achievements in the research. You can delete your question, if you cannot pursue your communicative goals and an adequate communicative effectiveness to a topic witin the framework of a highly specialized public discussion. Because of, the topic “Science”/”nonscience” is, in fact, a highly specialized one.

Restricted (private) forums are available, for example, you can use yahoo.