[rabbit]

Rick,

Fundamentally we agree.

Science does not endorse OR preclude
conclusive fact, it simply always welcomes more
accurate or complete fact. This seems to me
beautifully in harmony with the constancy of
change, but that's merely an aside.

Your use of the language however, might lend
credence to the anti-rationalist who says
we must give up finality of knowledge to faith.

Finality of knowledge, such as it will
ever be, lies in science.
We may just never get there!

 

[Al Stevens]

Hey Al, what were your first thoughts? Some of us are wondering.....

Let's see:

I agreed with Grumps about what happens when you disagree with someone. All that would accomplish would be to get someone pissed off at me.

I pointed out that the liberation of German scientists came well after we had the A-bomb nailed down and that they (Von Braun, Bruns, Debus, et al) helped us instead in the space program. All that would accomplish would be to further hijack the thread.

I forget the details of the third one, but it was probably about the contributions of science that benefit things not related to killing people and was equally irrelevant. All that would accomplish would be to get me sucked into this black hole of a subject.

All the while, I watched as folks tried to morph this thread into the one that inspired it.

And so it becomes yet another initiation ceremony into the Dead Horse Molester's Society.

I won't delete this one, but I should because it will accomplish all the things I tried not to accomplish.

 

[martysax]

And so it becomes yet another initiation ceremony into the Dead Horse Molester's Society.

Hooray for the Horses!

Wilbur: "Gee Mr. Ed, why the long face?"

 

[Rick Adams]

Rick,

Fundamentally we agree.

Do you think so? I'd have said that we fundamentally disagree, but that our working models over the top of those fundamentals are still very similar. Of course it could also be just semantics

As for the role of faith, well I'd love a long and in depth discussion about that, but something tells me it wouldn't be a good idea here on SOTW

 

[JL]

.....Einstein challenged the ultimate truths of our more recent time by showing that Newton's laws do not hold in all circumstances, tomorrow new science may well overturn our most preciously held "beliefs of today" for that is all that they are. Who'd have thought it eh?.

Good point Rick (and Rabbit is right on the money, also, at least imo). There is one more aspect to this that is kind of subtle and maybe not well-understood. Frame of reference is very important. Newton's laws hold up extremely well on a pool table and in the frame of reference that we inhabit; that is, well below the speed of light, in a "size range" that we can see and comprehend (not the atomic level), and with objects as we perceive them. However, once you get deeper into time & space, as Einstein did, your frame of reference changes and Newton's laws don't hold up so well. Neither do our "common sense" notions, because our perceptions are somewhat limited. Ok, enough of that!

Al, your points are right on. I'm a sucker for these kinds of discussions (I enjoy them). I know what you mean though. We've gone way afield of what is useful for the sax player (frame of reference again), but I think that was Grump's point. And maybe he has made that point, lol.

 

[rabbit]

but when that perspective invades the threads calling for more subjective experiences, what is really trying to be proven?

A majority of posts here
are about "how I feel"
regardless of topic.
Subjective experience rules.

It's a mad world, this is why.
I do it too. There are no
meds for this, only work.
Darn.

Still, it's a nice group and
there's great info here if
you follow Gary's mantra.
Or just ask.

JL,

Thanks

 

[14470]

And so it becomes yet another initiation ceremony into the Dead Horse Molester's Society.

I won't post any further in this thread since I am a scientist and hence biased, sort of the same way a professional saxophonists or woodwind technicians making statements about music and saxophones. I have to say though that I am surprised at how science and scientists are perceived and the (mis)conceptions of how war impacts on science (stated polited with abundant self-restraint ).

I'll go look for a(nother) dead horse to beat...it's a hot day in Boston...there must be one that has keeled over.

 

[Grumps]

Hooray for the Horses!

Hooray for the Horses?
Hooray for the Scientists, you mean.
Come on... a talking horse for cryin' out loud.
Now that was a peacetime breakthrough.

 

[JL]

Hooray for the Horses?
Hooray for the Scientists, you mean.
Come on... a talking horse for cryin' out loud.
Now that was a peacetime breakthrough.

ROTFLOL, thanks Grumps, I dig that one! Hey, you're right of course about science working so well when we're all out to kill each other. Not that it's the fault of science. Necessity breeds breakthroughs....

 

[Rick Adams]

ROTFLOL, thanks Grumps, I dig that one! Hey, you're right of course about science working so well when we're all out to kill each other. Not that it's the fault of science. Necessity breeds breakthroughs....

...and so do very large budgets, and budgets don't come much bigger than the so called "Defence" budget unfortunately.