Re: WTHOT: For John P, But About Books

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:28:55 -0400, "Jr@Ease"
<do.not.send.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While John Oliver Pondered, Weak and
Weary, Over Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
I consider the question meaningless. And I don't use the word rational
because I have no idea what it means. And I have no idea what
supernatural means.

I find that odd. You don't know what "rational" and 'supernatural"
means?

My dictionary gives:

1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of,
clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than
emotion or prejudice
2. in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable
in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific
knowledge and are not based on appeals to emotion or, prejudice

Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

Applying 1, the judging from the ID debate, the proponents of
evolution are not rational.

And there is no rational debate on the abortion issue in the US.

Applying 2, the claim that science is rational simply says science is
scientific which is completely useless as a definition.

I regard rational and supernatural as what philosophers call "noise"
words, they tell me more about the speaker than the subject at issue.

Newton's theory of mechanics worked for 250 years but turned out to be
wrong.

No, not wrong, just not precise enough.

John, Newton's theory of mechanics can be used for designing jet
planes or rifles or automobiles. It is utterly wrong when working with
modern particle accelerators such as the Stanford Linear Accelerator
or the large ones at Fermilab or CERN. And it provides no explanation
of radioactivity or how stars get their energy.


The theory of optics based on light being a wave worked for 100 years
but turned out to be wrong.

Again not wrong, just not precise. I though light worked both as a
wave and as particles.

I am told that you can use the photon (particle) approach to derive
the wave equations. But you can not explain the photo electric effect
without the particle approach. Its not a question of precision. Its a
question of experiments which can not be explained using waves.

I suggest that what science does is produce theories that work for a
while and then turn out to be wrong.

And you've made a lifelong career in this profession?

Certainly. That's what's fun about it. Some people like solving cross
word puzzles, others like solving chess problems and I happen to like
trying to figure out puzzles presented by the universe.

Sure, science always works from the proposition that it's right until
proven wrong, but at least when it's wrong, it automatically sheds
wrong thinking. That's actually a positive attribute of science.

Where do you get the automatic? John, there is no such thing as
science. Its a word for the combined activity of a large number of
human beings. Human beings do not automatically do anything.

And I consider it unreasonable, and downright pessimistic to boot, to
assume that a perfectly good tool will not work in the future. Keep
using it till it stops working. Don't throw it away because it may not
work in the future

John,

No one is talking about throwing away tools which work. A scientific
theory is a tool for answering questions. As the subjects of physics
or chemistry or biology or astronomy or ... develops, the questions
change and new tools are needed. Neither I nor anyone else knows what
questions physicists will be asking in 2300 and we don't know if our
present tools will be adequate to answer those questions.
--
John Oliver
jdoliver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einstein wasnt all wrong
    ... >Is light a wave or a particle? ... restrictions on what science tolerates would prevent science from ... without knowing too much physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: NOW wingers, NOW is the time
    ... global warming that may or may not be happening. ... If light was a particle, then by definition, its speed would be the ... Light isn't a particle OR a wave, it is a particle AND a wave. ... So you admit that science doesn't prove things AND disprove all else. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: The nature of Gravity?
    ... But, of course, all of our models of nature are mathematical. ... Wave-particle duality is a wave and a particle. ... That's not science, that is just making guesses and asserting that your ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: High Rise Living
    ... It was all over science fiction at the time, and I had some of the ... was supposing that there was a close relation between population density ... You haven't offered any evidence that ongoing increase in unsustainable, ... reason to think will. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... You are a continuing example of why scientists work to ... good reason, I believe. ... when wondering about questions posed by web pages on science. ... but to be honest I am not really interested in AGW issues. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)