Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: BURT on 29 May 2010 19:32 On May 29, 3:30 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. You just want to think of it that way. Give science millions of years and ask it if it knows a lot. This is intellectual dishonesty to say that we know a lot when it is just that we have gathered what looks like a lot of data. Science and you are clearly too young to claim it knows a lot. I challenge you on that. Mitch Raemsch
From: alien8er on 30 May 2010 08:30 On May 28, 11:32 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 5/28/2010 1:22 PM, maxwell 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 > > > Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. In > > order to gain public support (particularly cash), scientists like to > > claim most of the credit for technological advances in the last 200 > > years. Most of these were due to engineers, who have remained little > > known (if at all) since the scientists are the intellectuals who write > > the books. "He who writes, defines the history." > > If you don't have the theory you can't do the engineering. Horseshit. Tell us about the Japanese theoreticians behind the most feared swords in Asian history. Tell us about the Mongol theoreticians who worked out tension, torsion, and ballistics theories before engineering their marvelous composite bows. Tell us about the Egyptian theoreticians who worked out the compression failure limits of various types of stone *on papyrus* before engineering pyramids. Tell us about the thermodynamics that was worked out before anyone ever designed and built a steam engine. Tell us about the turbulent-flow equations that were solved before the Wright brothers flew. > Think radio would have existed without electromagnetic theory Radio *was* largely engineering. You *do* know the history of the vacuum tube, right? Does the term "Edison Effect" ring a bell? What part of advancing electromagnetic theory do you attribute to Nikola Tesla? > or lasers without quantum theory? Lasers are arguably a special case of fluorescence and IMO would have been invented eventually anyway. > And where would the electronics industry be > without transistors? Google for Oskar Heil. Mark L. Fergerson
From: alien8er on 30 May 2010 08:38 On May 28, 10:58 am, 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. > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > data. I mean what I said; we know a lot about how to *interpret* what data we have gathered and how to use it to *predict* other data and how to go look for it. You wish to define "a lot" one particular way, namely what we will know in millions of years (assuming we're even around by then), but that's not my problem. Science requires a weird mix of arrogance (I can *so* solve this problem!) and humility (everything I know may turn out to be wrong). You want to concentrate on the humility, fine, go right ahead. But don't make the mistake of assuming I'm focusing on the arrogance. Einstein said "The more I learn, the more I realize I dont know." But beware *your* arrogance; he also said "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 30 May 2010 14:37 On May 30, 5:38 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 10:58 am, 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. > > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > > data. > > I mean what I said; we know a lot about how to *interpret* what data > we have gathered and how to use it to *predict* other data and how to > go look for it. Oh really. I don't think so. Prove it. Science is much too young to make that claim. The only thing you have right is the idea of a lot of data. Mitch Raemsch
From: alien8er on 31 May 2010 18:33
On May 30, 11:37 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 5:38 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 28, 10:58 am, 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. > > > > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of > > > data. > > > I mean what I said; we know a lot about how to *interpret* what data > > we have gathered and how to use it to *predict* other data and how to > > go look for it. > > Oh really. I don't think so. Prove it. Science is much too young to > make that claim. The only thing you have right is the idea of a lot of > data. Science isn't just stamp-collecting; it's useful because it's *predictive*. What we learn about the patterns in our "lot of data" tells us about things we *didn't* collect data on yet, and when we collect that data we discover either that the pattern we found earlier still holds, or that new patterns emerge. Example: Why is gold yellow? Mark L. Fergerson |