On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>>> what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>>
>> Jim
>
> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

Why would that have been better?

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:47:18 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>> accumulated by humanity since the first humans only account for a
>>> small fraction of what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/27 16:06, andrel a écrit :
> On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
>> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>>
>>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>>>> what can be known.
>>>
>>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>>> there is one).
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
>
> Why would that have been better?
>

It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance 
of the part relative to the whole.

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 22:51, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/27 16:06, andrel a écrit :
>> On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
>>> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>>>> accumulated
>>>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small
>>>>> fraction of
>>>>> what can be known.
>>>>
>>>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>>>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>>>> there is one).
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
>>
>> Why would that have been better?
>>
>
> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
> of the part relative to the whole.

Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by 
infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes 
me. But I am not a native speaker.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:11:53 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
>> of the part relative to the whole.
> 
> Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by
> infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes
> me. But I am not a native speaker.

That was how I read it - "part" doesn't necessarily imply a definitive 
whole, just "less than 100%".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arriving-fashionable-late-for-party.html

Darn.  I was hoping that we were that much closer to warp drive.

Is Zefram Cochrane born yet?

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days when

> is it such a shock when we are reminded for the umpteenth time that the MODELS
> that we build in accordance with our various theories apply to a specific range
> of observed phenomena and that the greater universe as a whole is under no
> obligation to constrain its existence within those parameters?

Probably because most people don't understand what science is all about.

No small part of that may be that people who come from religious backgrounds and
are used to having The Truth handed to them don't realize that science doesn't
operate that way.  There is also the human craving for answers (which is a major
impetus for both religion and science), which leads to the media giving their
customers what they want (i.e., answers), even when the scientists haven't
published an answer.  This confirms people's mistaken impression that science
dispenses answers the way religious leaders do.

So when science learns something radical, it shakes up people's worlds.  For
people who never knowingly trusted science in the first place, it "confirms"
their belief that scientists are bumbling idiots.  (I say "knowingly" because
they certainly do trust their planes, trains, automobiles, bridges, computers,
electricity, inclined planes, GPS systems, modern medicine, radios, skyscrapers,
telephones, television sets, and smoke detectors--that last of which would not
work if radioactive decay rates were not constant.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 03:10 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:

> > interesting than an ordinary flaw in the experiment or the equipment.  It could
> > be a real opportunity to learn something very interesting about the structure of
> > spacetime.
>
> It's always nice to see experimental results lead to new scientific
> understanding of nature. Unfortunately, these days that almost always
> means new results with utterly defy comprehension. But we'll see...
>



>
> These people are idiots.
>
> If scientists already understood everything about the universe, there
> would be literally no need to continue studying science, now would there?
>
> Scientists *know* there are still questions to be answered. And they're
> trying to answer them, every single day. Religious fanatics, on the
> other hand, simply want everybody to agree with them, so that they can
> feel smugly superior. Infantile, really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSOD77clNZM

At 4:51 Dawkins explains why, if he were James Randi, he would be worried about
losing his million dollars.  Randi explains why he would be delighted.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:15:08 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days
>> when so-called “conflicts” between Newtonian and Planck time 
were all
>> the rage.  Why is it such a shock when we are reminded for the
>> umpteenth time that the MODELS that we build in accordance with our
>> various theories apply to a specific range of observed phenomena and
>> that the greater universe as a whole is under no obligation to
>> constrain its existence within those parameters?
> 
> Probably because most people don't understand what science is all about.
> 
> No small part of that may be that people who come from religious
> backgrounds and are used to having The Truth handed to them don't
> realize that science doesn't operate that way.  There is also the human
> craving for answers (which is a major impetus for both religion and
> science), which leads to the media giving their customers what they want
> (i.e., answers), even when the scientists haven't published an answer. 
> This confirms people's mistaken impression that science dispenses
> answers the way religious leaders do.
> 
> So when science learns something radical, it shakes up people's worlds. 
> For people who never knowingly trusted science in the first place, it
> "confirms" their belief that scientists are bumbling idiots.  (I say
> "knowingly" because they certainly do trust their planes, trains,
> automobiles, bridges, computers, electricity, inclined planes, GPS
> systems, modern medicine, radios, skyscrapers, telephones, television
> sets, and smoke detectors--that last of which would not work if
> radioactive decay rates were not constant.)

I've been reading Michael Schumer's _The Believing Brain_, and one point 
that he makes is that conscious beings (be they human or not) are hard-
wired by evolution to believe stuff.

Another point he makes is that an individual's scientific knowledge in 
and of itself is not a predictor of whether or not they believe in a 
deity or some other supernatural force.

What's missing from most education these days is teaching of the 
scientific method.  Teaching students scientific facts just gives 
students something else to believe in.  Teaching how those facts were 
determined to be most likely true (and what process exists to allow that 
to change to "you know what, we were wrong about that") is more important 
than the facts themselves.

In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical 
thinking.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29-9-2011 19:29, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>
http://neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arriving-fashionable-late-for-party.html
>
> Darn.  I was hoping that we were that much closer to warp drive.

Guess who started this thread?


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message