|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. No, he appeared to be referring to all theories: "Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't." If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible, experiments and later discarded. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:luwci.4098$bP5.4094
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of course! That's how science works! Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are they? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. No, he appeared to be referring to all theories: "Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't." And, I'd say that his statement is true, almost by definition. Why? Well, it's because scientists don't upgrade a proposal from something generally called a "hypothesis", to something called a "theory", until it has survived quite a lot of technical challenges and numerous attempts to find experimental evidence which disproves it. In other words, if it were easy (and quick) to disprove it, or if it didn't have substantial predictive power and verifiability, it never would have been called a "theory". Hypotheses are born in large numbers... and are often easily slain while they're still at the "hypothesis" stage. "Theories" are the ones which are still marching along, churning out useful predictions, after many assaults. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:FZDci.98$Rw1.80
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: And you can name those people ... and refer to a message where this can be verified? Don't want to name names but here is the assertion with which I have been disagreeing: "Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't." No one is prevented from holding a theory that is wrong, so the statement is more or less true. There are flat earthers around yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if we could dig up someone who believes in Phlogiston theory yet. There is no law that says we have to be right! ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are they? Well, let's take an example. There was a theory that the smallest independent organism couldn't be smaller than ~1 um. Using the scientific method, no organism smaller than that was discovered for decades. Now we have apparently discovered an independent organism 50 times smaller than the theory allowed. Was the theory right or wrong? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: "Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't." No one is prevented from holding a theory that is wrong, so the statement is more or less true. There are flat earthers around yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if we could dig up someone who believes in Phlogiston theory yet. There is no law that says we have to be right! ;^) Well, that shines a whole new light on the discussion. Theories are never discarded even when they are proved to be incorrect. I think I understand now. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:luwci.4098$bP5.4094 @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of course! That's how science works! Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are they? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - The most vilest lie is sometimes successful--IF it contains at least one element of truth, least it be recognized for what it is and discarded immediately. JS |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible, experiments and later discarded. Just to get you started, mind you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolet...tific_theories Let's do the physics ones: Aristotelian theory of gravity: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Classical mechanics: experimentally verified; superseded and still used within appropriate boundaries. Classical electrodynamics: experimentally verified; superceded and still used within appropriate boundaries. Ether: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Caloric theory: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Emitter theory: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Persistence of vision: no experimental confirmation; still debated. Let's do astronomical and cosmological theories: Ptolemaic system/Geocentric universe: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Copernican system: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Newtonian gravity: experimentally verified; superseded and still used within appropriate boundaries. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:luwci.4098$bP5.4094 @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of course! That's how science works! Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are they? Obviously since Newton isn't good enough to build an airplane, a bridge, or even a one hole out house and the relativistic effects MUST be concidered in all cases. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Newtonian gravity: experimentally verified; superseded and still used within appropriate boundaries. Yep. Plenty enough for argument to keep an open mind on the theories still in use today ... Is that babble supposed to mean something? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Ether: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Caloric theory: no experimental confirmation; discarded. Emitter theory: no experimental confirmation; discarded. So many scientific theories have been discarded down through history. Yes, people that don't understand what a theory is do say that. And people that want to play symantic games. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Yes, people that don't understand what a theory is do say that. Theory: There is no life on Mars. If life is eventually discovered, it wasn't a wrong theory because it wasn't a theory. How convenient. Semantic games; calling a hypothesis a theory doesn't make it a theory. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
... Try thinking out-of-the-box a bit more ... JS We are drowning in theories filled with holes and errors ... for example: To restate, to the point of boring repetition, time is a only a theory. It is a theory that can be proved to be false, and with the use of sheer logic only. Time is a figment of mans imagination. For all mans endeavors of establishing time, all he has ever done is measure movement. From the first stick stuck in the sand to measure the movement of the earth and sun, to the hourglass which measures the movement of sand though a small orifice, to the cesium clock which measures the movement (loss of particles) from an element, etc. Movement is real, time is not (at least not in the way we think of it), time is only a convenient tool/model for man to use to attempt to make sense of his world, and only an imaginary tool at that. Example: We say we "age." However, we don't age in the way we think, that time has some "aging" effect upon us. We age because, just like a xerox machine makes copies, so are the cells of our bodies making copies of themselves. Just as there are new errors introduced in the copies made for previous copies with a xerox machine, so are errors in the cells of our bodies introduced, until fatal errors are being made ... death occurs as result. Mountains crumble and fall into the sea, but not because of time, because of movement. Whatever time is, movement is married to it, whatever movement is, time is married to it. They are one and the same ... When our antenna equations have a "time element" in them, they are quite obviously in error. Time is but a placeholder for some other phenomenon, most likely some aspect of movement ... it may even be the unseen, undetectable, and unknown movement of the ether--the only thing for sure, we don't understand it. Time is only a theory which waits its' demise ... and a prime example of a yet-to-be discarded theory. JS |
Water burns!
wrote:
Semantic games; calling a hypothesis a theory doesn't make it a theory. Using hindsight to deny the existence of discarded theories doesn't change reality. I agree that semantic games are being played but most likely not by Wikipedia who lists a number of scientific theories that have been discredited and discarded. My Dad was taught the atomic theory, the theory that an atom is the smallest indivisible discrete unit of matter. Global warming is being called a theory by virtually everyone. I predict that's one more theory that will be discredited. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Global warming is being called a theory by virtually everyone. I predict that's one more theory that will be discredited. Cecil: I would hold back just a bit on that "theory." When I was young, there was a "theory" that garbage just decayed back into the environment--no harm done. Many years later, when poisons began showing up in wells and the environment we began paying much more attention to releasing garbage into the environment ... Apparently, today, there is a theory that filling the air with garbage is OK. That it is just decaying back into the environment ... Well, once burned is twice warned ... Regards, JS |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Global warming is being called a theory by virtually everyone. I predict that's one more theory that will be discredited. If my wife calls her cat a lion, does that make it a lion? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... wrote: Semantic games; calling a hypothesis a theory doesn't make it a theory. Global warming is being called a theory by virtually everyone. I predict that's one more theory that will be discredited. talk about semantic games... 'global warming' is most likely happening. we are still coming out of the little ice age and there are other factors that are contributing... the game being played is blaming it on human activities... and the bigger game is convincing people that we can stop it. thats all a conspiracy to shut down 'big oil' and coal and the global economy that depends on cheap energy. |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
I would hold back just a bit on that "theory." Quoted from: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221 "Three scientific studies that have recently appeared may well spell the beginning of the end of global warming theory:" -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... If my wife calls her cat a lion, does that make it a lion? While keeping an open mind on that one is difficult, I just don't know? What is your theory on that? :-) Genetic testing indicates it is a common house cat, ergo the hypothesis that it is a lion was proven incorrect and the theory that it is a cat is confirmed. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: I would hold back just a bit on that "theory." Quoted from: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221 "Three scientific studies that have recently appeared may well spell the beginning of the end of global warming theory:" -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil: In my biology classes, taken decades ago, I was taught plants were the main recycling process of carbon dioxide. Today, it is known the ocean is storing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, indeed, in my readings, the limestone reefs being created by the death and accumulation of shelled organisms is possibly the major player ... One thing I do know, politics is playing much too large a role in science, and when there is such a partnership between big oil and politics, I am only twice as apprehensive to the availability of real facts. Politics appear to dominate all in todays world. Having even crossed the church-state separation barrier and defining even marriage! (a God created institution which gov't. has no place in. Drawing images in the mind of when it was a kings right to sleep with your bride first!) The present world, in my view, has left the confines of sanity and reality--setting up a fantasy world where a sirens' song is being sung to trap the unwary ... I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope science will prevail in the near future. Of course, Rush Limbaugh has determined it is false, and everyone knows, if rush said it, it is as good as truth! ;-) Regards, JS |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
... The cat is king of this jungle ... :-( Regards, JS Yep, I am afraid I will have to side with your wife on that one ... LOL! JS |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
If a billion people called a cat a lion, it would be a lion by definition. Incidentally, a lion *is* a cat. From Webster's: "cat - any animal of the family that includes domestic cats, lions, tigers, and leopards." But common usage is that "cat" means those thing usually found shredding drapes when they aren't hanging out on the window sill just as common usage is that theory... So which definition do you use for a given word Cecil, the common, usually abiguous one, the precise, context based one, or whichever leads to the most semantic games? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope science will prevail in the near future. Here's probably all you need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of 340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of 410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000 years ago indicating that we are already in the next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
wrote:
But common usage is that "cat" means those thing usually found shredding drapes ... Yet there are none of that species in the "Cat House" at the local zoo, also common usage. "Felis silvestris" will leave no doubt as to the species being referenced although "domestic cat" will do. For scientific theories extremely unlikely to be proved wrong, maybe you use the word, "principle", instead of "theory"? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Yet there are none of that species in the "Cat House" at the local zoo, also common usage. The closest "Cat House" that I know of is just outside Las Vegas. For scientific theories extremely unlikely to be proved wrong, maybe you use the word, "principle", instead of "theory"? But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed? Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there. With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
On Jun 16, 8:05 am, wrote:
So which definition do you use for a given word Cecil, the common, usually abiguous one, the precise, context based one, or whichever leads to the most semantic games? It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he said to be true in some context. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
On 16 Jun, 09:45, wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed? Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there. With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Jim, you have posted 1000+ in newsgroups starting with "sci" and as with this group you have never met a person that you could like. Seems like the word babble,idiot a few swear words, moron,etc is what you base your posts around. It does appear to me that the aviation people took you at your word when you said you wanted to be buried in Chicago when you said you would not post in that newsgroup again. Now you have rissen from the dead where you can hurt as many people as you can in this newsgroup with your own style of babble. Why do you wake up in the morning? There surely something in the World where you could be happy instead of hanging around here. Find out where that place is and go there and this time work on building up some credability in your enunciations if your ideals are to have a sensible conversation instead of abusive one liners that you now thrive upon. To use a life like the way you are squandering yours is a very sad thing to watch. |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:ZLGci.19671$C96.7397
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: Mike Coslo wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are they? Well, let's take an example. There was a theory that the smallest independent organism couldn't be smaller than ~1 um. Using the scientific method, no organism smaller than that was discovered for decades. Now we have apparently discovered an independent organism 50 times smaller than the theory allowed. Was the theory right or wrong? I believe that the hypothesis was wrong. minimum size for a life form doesn't make it quite as far as a theory to me. Based on what we knew t the time, it wasn't a bad guess. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com