 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Fine. But if you are intellectually honest, you will also be able to say "I
> have no reason to believe that finding the top quark will have *any*
> practical applications, and thus won't take it as an assumption" (people in
I *am* being intellectually honest. I've already said earlier that I
have no reason to believe throwing $100 billion at cancer research will
bring us an iota closer to curing it. If I had good reason to think so,
then it wouldn't be research.
>> Besides, why limit to 100 years? What if it provides benefits 300 years
>> from now?
>
> Who (currently alive) need care about 300 years from now? You simply don't
> make dubious investments for what might or might not happen in 300 years,
> wasting present resources in the process.
>
> There's a sharp diminishing of value towards the end of one's lifespan. Even
> 100 years is an overly generous period. Would you rather win $1 billion in
> the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?
I already pointed out to you that I don't view (any) science as an
investment that is supposed to give material returns. The return you get
is knowledge. Everything else (technology, etc) is a side effect not
related to the goal.
Given that, your question makes little sense.
--
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: End of the world delayed until spring
Date: 25 Sep 2008 22:46:04
Message: <48dc4cec@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48db0b08$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> In fact, it has zero application, past, present or foreseeble future.
>
>> Do you have a citation for this? Or is this argument from ignorance?
>> Because, like, you keep saying this, and it seems to be the center of
>> your argument, but I've seen nothing except your statements that the
>> research is and must be useless.
>
> Please provide an application, if you can. I cannot cite for something
> that doesn't exist.
Hmm how was that quote... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: End of the world delayed until spring
Date: 25 Sep 2008 22:52:50
Message: <48dc4e82@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> Can you *prove* that?
>
> No. Proof is for mathematicians and spirits.
And belief is for religious.
What does that leave for the scientists?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Hmm how was that quote... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Actually, yeah, it is.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. But evidence? Sure. It's
certainly not evidence of presence. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
> news:0bakd49unltslh3hhab4b595hd2j7b93b3@4ax.com...
>
>> ... plus an immeasurable number of side inventions that affect our daily
> lives ...
>>
>> http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml
>
> Going to the moon was bad science (well, not even science, just a
> technological tour de force).
There was plenty of science that resulted from the Apollo missions like
the collection of lunar samples that could be radiometrically dated and
used to calibrate the crater counting method of determining the age of
cratered areas. Now we have estimates of the ages of cratered worlds
much further away than the Moon without having sent sample collection
mission to all of those worlds yet.
Those samples are older than most or all rocks we have on Earth so they
tell us about the early history of our neighborhood of the solar system.
Then there are the retroreflectors placed on the Moon that enable precise
determinations of its distance from us and its change.
We also shouldn't be shortsighted and not worry about how things will be
300 years from now because it'll be our descendants who will be around by
then. I won't want them to figure out stuff that we could've easily
figured out and then stereotype us as lazy bums who wasted those
centuries by not doing that research to give them the results sooner, like
how people today see Dark Ages Eurpoe.
We'd have to expand into space eventually if our kind or our descendants
are around long enough because the Sun is heating up slowly during its
main sequence lifetime, which has been predicted to make Earth
inhospitable to modern types of ecosystems within a billion years, long
before its red giant phrase. It'd be difficult through.
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2003archive/01-03archive/k011303a.html
Brendan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> 48dbc037@news.povray.org...
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:48dbafbb@news.povray.org...
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:18 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >
> > Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application in
> > the next, say, 100 years?
> >
> Religions are founded on beliefs, science is not.
>
I think that I might disagree slightly here.
Religions are founded on faith. Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in need of
modifying.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > They do a good bread made from ground bones under that bridge ;)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> What can you possibly mean? :-)
>
>
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.48dc91a9fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
>
> I think that I might disagree slightly here.
> Religions are founded on faith.
Is that objectively different? For believers it is faith, for others it is
beliefs. Question of POV (but still o-t ;-).
>Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
> beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in
> need of
> modifying.
LOL now I shall nitpick (question of POV?) science is founded on theories.
The difference is that theories have to face experiment, beliefs don't.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> web.48dc91a9fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I think that I might disagree slightly here.
> > Religions are founded on faith.
> Is that objectively different? For believers it is faith, for others it is
> beliefs. Question of POV (but still o-t ;-).
>
Well speaking as a non believer, I think there is but that is subjective :)
My definition is faith needs no proof but belief can be subject to proof. Woolly
type of thread several times before.
> >Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
> > beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in
> > need of
> > modifying.
> LOL now I shall nitpick (question of POV?) science is founded on theories.
> The difference is that theories have to face experiment, beliefs don't.
>
Are you asking for a discussion about hypothesis, theory, fact and divine
revelations?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.48dca581fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
>
> Are you asking for a discussion about hypothesis, theory, fact and divine
> revelations?
> Cause I'm not the one for it. I'll leave that to those who care ;)
>
> Stephen
>
Oh no not at all, sorry.
I don't really care either.
There are enough preachers that care for us even if we asked nothing.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
