I think its fine too - its still based on a naturally occurring substance. The history of the discovery is interesting when looking at the claim and counter claims of Hoffmann, Eichengrün and Dreser - they don't agree amongst themselves even!
Science and Superstition
- Thread starter Jaan
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
aaah - actually I think we were doing "in jokes" about Terry Pratchett books - no offense intended
I agree about "Science" btw - its the hubris of people (who have rarely actually consucted any original research themselves) is amusing - particularly when the basic proposition is "I belive something I have not tested - this is more valid than another untested belief"
Last edited:
Long before the end of my schooling I recognised that I had been taught in measure with my level of understanding and needs, and as I had grown, the accuracy and complexity of the models I was presented to work with had increased. For instance, the way that an atom was described when I was working at A-Level was different, and more complex, than how it had been described at GCSE, which in turn had been more complex than how it had been described in secondary school. Each description, each model of an atom, had served as a practical tool for applying to the work I was doing at the time. It was not a great leap of imagination to think it possible that this progression of ever more complex "models" being revealed was not so far off from how new scientific discoveries are made.
I am sure that someone could have said to my teachers "...but you told us that atoms were little solid spheres with sticks poking out of them, now you have changed your mind and want us to believe that they are chatotic clusters of particles whose position is governed by probabilities, so much for you knowing your facts...I'm not going to believe you any more!" That rather adolesent reaction doesn't seem so far removed from the response of some people, even well educated ones, to news of new results or observations announced by scientists.
The following is a rather nice video clip of an interview with Richard Feynman, discussing the difficulties of describing something to a layman in terms that they will understand. Well worth a watch as it does seem to bear upon the present discussion
http://www.wimp.com/feynmanterms/
I am sure that someone could have said to my teachers "...but you told us that atoms were little solid spheres with sticks poking out of them, now you have changed your mind and want us to believe that they are chatotic clusters of particles whose position is governed by probabilities, so much for you knowing your facts...I'm not going to believe you any more!" That rather adolesent reaction doesn't seem so far removed from the response of some people, even well educated ones, to news of new results or observations announced by scientists.
The following is a rather nice video clip of an interview with Richard Feynman, discussing the difficulties of describing something to a layman in terms that they will understand. Well worth a watch as it does seem to bear upon the present discussion
http://www.wimp.com/feynmanterms/
Last edited:
aaah - actually I rhink we were doing "in jokes" about Terry Pratchett books - no offense intended
None taken. I think my point is that it's ok to not accept everything science throws at you. We should be able to say 'no, not buying that' without being thought of as a loony.
Oh and maybe science isn't quite as wrong as it was 500 years ago. But it's still wrong
Sent from my iToaster using Tapatalk
BR. Sounds like you don't like dogma all that much and find it amusing that it crops up in humans, whatever their field, whether it be science or religion? Have you ever considered that your consistent stance against the very term "science" could be a tad dogmatic?
Oooh - Touche!
Yet physics is only an approximation of Quantum physics
Quantum physics is a subset of Physics - hence the prefix.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should accept everything that is thrown at you without question. But if you say 'no, not buying that' in the face of evidence that can be reproduced by anyone with the skills and equipment, then I'm afraid I think you're a looney
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should accept everything that is thrown at you without question. But if you say 'no, not buying that' in the face of evidence that can be reproduced by anyone with the skills and equipment, then I'm afraid I think you're a looney
Haha fair enough!
I'm safe from your loony judging then because I'll believe (almost) anything that can be absolutely proved true.
Sent from my iToaster using Tapatalk
Could we not just accept that people are not obligated to believe the same thing?
This dogmatism to "toe the line" or be a "Looney" really is very close to shouting "heretic"
This dogmatism to "toe the line" or be a "Looney" really is very close to shouting "heretic"
- Status
