Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: Don Stockbauer on 28 May 2010 15:39 On May 28, 12:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > > say. > > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > > squat. > > Mark L. Fergerson > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > data. We do know quite a lot, and quite a lot of what really matters when it gets down to understanding the Universe. Study cybernetics.
From: BURT on 28 May 2010 19:32 On May 28, 12:39 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 12:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > > > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > > > say. > > > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > > > squat. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > > data. > > We do know quite a lot, and quite a lot of what really matters when it > gets down to understanding the Universe. Study cybernetics.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Bull. You have no proof that we know a lot. You have gotten the wrong idea. You like to think you do and if not you somebody else. But it doesn't bear out. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 28 May 2010 23:51 On May 28, 6:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 12:39 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 28, 12:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > > > > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > > > > say. > > > > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > > > > squat. > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > > > data. > > > We do know quite a lot, and quite a lot of what really matters when it > > gets down to understanding the Universe. Study cybernetics.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Bull. You have no proof that we know a lot. You have gotten the wrong > idea. You like to think you do and if not you somebody else. But it > doesn't bear out. We know a lot right now. In the future we will know a lot more. "A lot" is relative.
From: BURT on 29 May 2010 15:18 On May 28, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 6:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 28, 12:39 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 12:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > > > > > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > > > > > say. > > > > > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > > > > > squat. > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > > > > data. > > > > We do know quite a lot, and quite a lot of what really matters when it > > > gets down to understanding the Universe. Study cybernetics.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Bull. You have no proof that we know a lot. You have gotten the wrong > > idea. You like to think you do and if not you somebody else. But it > > doesn't bear out. > > We know a lot right now. No we don't. We have data. Mitch Raemsch > In the future we will know a lot more. "A > lot" is relative.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Don Stockbauer on 29 May 2010 18:30
On May 29, 2:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 28, 6:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 12:39 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 28, 12:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > > > > > > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > > > > > > say. > > > > > > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > > > > > > squat. > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > > > > > data. > > > > > We do know quite a lot, and quite a lot of what really matters when it > > > > gets down to understanding the Universe. Study cybernetics.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Bull. You have no proof that we know a lot. You have gotten the wrong > > > idea. You like to think you do and if not you somebody else. But it > > > doesn't bear out. > > > We know a lot right now. > > No we don't. We have data. Well, your conversational opponent can play the game just a swell as you can, Mitch: We know a lot right now. |