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

"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:

> 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

We are in accord, my brother ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> I’ll soon be able to come for a drink. Then I will tell you.
> 
> --
> 
> Stephen; thinking about listening to “In the Hall of the Mountain King”
> 

I read your sig as " thinking about listening to "In the Hall of the 
Mountain Grill" :-)

To save everyone Googling the phrase, it's the title of a 1974 Hawkwind 
album - arguably, their best.

John

-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message