Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 25 Oct 2006 20:52 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:18:40 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. The very use of the term, perfect, should be removed from our vocabulary. We don't ever have the perspective to even use it. Anyway, it's not complicated or confusing, and you know it, John. I hope you weren't implying anything. Theories evolve in our mental space and not in perceptual space and we don't always know the limitations, at first. In fact, it's actually the possession of a good theory that allows you to then "see" better towards what is left unexplained and to then go after that. To begin, we imagine broader reach simply because we lack perspective to know better, when first proposing a theory. Then, as various boundaries are unearthed in our perceptual space via experimental results, we learn to recognize them and the initially imagined boundaries contract a little. More encompassing theory may then be discovered and applied to the same places where prior, more prosaic theory also applies, but also now to deal with still more. Of course, you know all this, as you don't need to worry about the exact solutions to Schroedinger equations in 10^10 dimensional space in order to use BJTs, nor would you chastise the use of practical and much simpler theory, such as Gummel-Poon or EM or even just Shockley, just because they are not perfect. What you got, "it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not," discerns nothing useful or new. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 25 Oct 2006 21:13 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:16:55 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>> Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >>>> in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >>>> were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >>>> school. >>> >>>Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor. >> >> Do people still say "duh"? >> >>> >>>Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science. >> >> This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. > >Bad science is not situational. Doesn't matter where it is, basing >assumption on anecdotal evidence is bad science. > > >> 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." The very idea of some of this discussion about "looks like rain" makes me worry some folks actually imagine this discussion has _anything_ at all to do with science knowledge. Not even close. Jon
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 21:56 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:26:52 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:h5ntj2tj5na16ukm8mafsl3k29tocm4k4j(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:07:31 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to >>>> optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of >>>> that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some >>>> interestingly hostile reactions. >>> >>>Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the >>>mechanism for that. >> >> Mutation and natural selection, of course. > >That begs the question. What exactly is the mechanism that allows mutation >and natural selection to control themselves, if both occur passively? > > >> If that was enough to give >> us kidneys and eyeballs and brains, it's surely enough to fine-tune >> the hardware of evolution itself. > >You're not going to win any converts with that condescending attitude. > > What's condescending about my reply? I assume that if you asked the question, you didn't already know the answer. And my point is that whatever mechanism evolved an eagle's eyeball surely has the horsepower to manage a bit of self-tuning. Where's the rule that says evolution can shape an organism but can't affect evolution itself? But the serious point here is that you have declared that how you evaluate an idea depends on the deference with which it is presented. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. John
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 22:00 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:52:45 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:18:40 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>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. > >The very use of the term, perfect, should be removed from our >vocabulary. We don't ever have the perspective to even use it. > >Anyway, it's not complicated or confusing, and you know it, John. I >hope you weren't implying anything. Theories evolve in our mental >space and not in perceptual space and we don't always know the >limitations, at first. In fact, it's actually the possession of a >good theory that allows you to then "see" better towards what is left >unexplained and to then go after that. Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. Einstein's are better. > >To begin, we imagine broader reach simply because we lack perspective >to know better, when first proposing a theory. Then, as various >boundaries are unearthed in our perceptual space via experimental >results, we learn to recognize them and the initially imagined >boundaries contract a little. More encompassing theory may then be >discovered and applied to the same places where prior, more prosaic >theory also applies, but also now to deal with still more. > >Of course, you know all this, as you don't need to worry about the >exact solutions to Schroedinger equations in 10^10 dimensional space >in order to use BJTs, nor would you chastise the use of practical and >much simpler theory, such as Gummel-Poon or EM or even just Shockley, >just because they are not perfect. > >What you got, "it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not," >discerns nothing useful or new. As didn't the line I was responding to. Dang, you guys get serious. John
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 22:03
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. Right. That's the reason people don't want to just leave quantum mechanics alone, and relativity alone, and call it a day. One more giant unification is lurking somewhere in the distance. John |