Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Oct 2006 19:00 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > >> > >> > If somebody > >> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." > >> > >> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An > >> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two > >> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." > > > >An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! > > > >Graham > > How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain > today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose. No doubt. Graham
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 19:09 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:4nnvj2lppam6tqe5su8de9ee7u4reg3j5d(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:32:17 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>> message >>> >>> > If somebody >>> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." >>> >>> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. >>> An >>> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two >>> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." >> >>An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! >> >>Graham > > How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain > today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose. If you said it without looking outside - yes. If the rainy season was 39 days long then it probably wouldn't rain.
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 19:13 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:crnvj2pn12lbhdqj7j88rs3bq4ub38b0qn(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > wrote: > >>In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>best >>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>> >>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>>>one >>> >>>Einstein >>> >>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>>because of [insert reason here]. >>> >>>General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. >>> >> >>But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with >>quantum >>mechanics. > > But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best. Newtonian gravity is perfect at what it tries to describe. GR is perfect at what it tries to describe and like all good theories includes Newtonian gravity as a subset. GR matches Newtonian predictions where applicable. As an example Newtonian gravity does not include very large mass objects, so it does not properly explain the curvature of space around a star (for example), however Newtonian gravity will allow you to put an man on the moon. Each theory is good in its own domain, which is why there is a strong element of belief in science.
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 20:17 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:09:56 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:4nnvj2lppam6tqe5su8de9ee7u4reg3j5d(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:32:17 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>> message >>>> >>>> > If somebody >>>> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." >>>> >>>> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. >>>> An >>>> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two >>>> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." >>> >>>An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! >>> >>>Graham >> >> How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain >> today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose. > >If you said it without looking outside - yes. > >If the rainy season was 39 days long then it probably wouldn't rain. > Well, we do have extremely precise rainy seasons here in California. John
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 20:18
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:13:01 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:crnvj2pn12lbhdqj7j88rs3bq4ub38b0qn(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >> wrote: >> >>>In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" >>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>>best >>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>> >>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>>>>one >>>> >>>>Einstein >>>> >>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>>>because of [insert reason here]. >>>> >>>>General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. >>>> >>> >>>But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with >>>quantum >>>mechanics. >> >> But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best. > >Newtonian gravity is perfect at what it tries to describe. > Cool, it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not. Got it. John |