Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 18:44 On May 31, 3:33 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science has gathered a lot of data but not any complete or even near complete understanding. It is far too young to proclaim it any different. Mitch Raemsch
From: nuny on 31 May 2010 21:41 On May 31, 3:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 3:33 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > Science has gathered a lot of data but not any complete or even near > complete understanding. It is far too young to proclaim it any > different. I said nothing about "complete". I said we have a lot more knowledge (understanding, if you prefer) than you seem to think we do, which was gained from discovering patterns in the data we *have* collected. When do you think "complete" understanding of *anything* will come? Also, why do *you* think gold is yellow? Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 21:55 On May 31, 6:41 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 3:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 3:33 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > Science has gathered a lot of data but not any complete or even near > > complete understanding. It is far too young to proclaim it any > > different. > > I said nothing about "complete". I said we have a lot more knowledge > (understanding, if you prefer) than you seem to think we do, which was > gained from discovering patterns in the data we *have* collected. > > When do you think "complete" understanding of *anything* will come? > > Also, why do *you* think gold is yellow? > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Millions of years of work not right around the corner as the nut Hawking has promissed in the 80's. Mitch Raemsch
From: rick_s on 3 Jun 2010 15:21 In article <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae76d8(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, macromitch(a)yahoo.com says... > > >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 If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal of electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and Marconi? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_the_E ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can put two and two together.
From: BURT on 3 Jun 2010 23:24
On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > In article > <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > >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 > > If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal of > electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and Marconi? > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t... > ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG > > The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can put > two and two together. What's your point rick? |