S&S vs. SF in BotNS

Sergei SOLOVIEV · 23 Dec 2011, 17:09 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: soloviev at irit.fr (Sergei SOLOVIEV)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:09:22 +0100
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <4EF495C8.90405 at hyraxes.com>
References: <SNT123-W6264EC536A69C6A6153331CFAA0 at phx.gbl><4EF414CF.3000700 at clueland.com>	<4EF462C8.909 at gmail.com>
	<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>
	<4EF495C8.90405 at hyraxes.com>
Message-ID: <4EF4B5C2.3080400 at irit.fr>

You should not trust so much journalists, even scientific. Once I've 
seen a picture of a sort of orange solar disk
and a smaller black disk crossing it - with the title "an exoplanet 
photographed. This was rubbish, because
no telescope is powerful enough to make a star (except our Sun) visible 
as a disk, not to speak about
an exoplanet. It was just a reconstruction (star is dimmer when the 
planet passes before it). And when they
write "a photo of an electron" - what is it? The trace of some process 
on photographic film, usually
with many intermediate steps and a lot of mathematical formulas and 
nuclear physics to convince
you that it is related to an electron. Like they photograph flashes of 
light in big tank of pure water
underground and they say that they photograph neitrinos (and you have to 
believe).

regards

Sergei Soloviev

Dave Lebling wrote:
> http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/
>
> I have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that 
> will enable you to see one for yourself.
>
> -- Dave Lebling
>
> On 12/23/2011 8:44 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> *From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>> Jeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):
>>
>> > > You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop 
>> hexings are
>> > > not reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well 
>> enough that
>> > > we can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent 
>> it from
>> > > striking houses when it occurs naturally.
>>
>> > It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 
>> 'Our
>> > Theory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was 
>> written
>> > in the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without 
>> the
>> > fancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science 
>> may be
>> > impresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it 
>> doesn't
>> > follow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At 
>> the end
>> > of the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does 
>> Classical
>> > Physiscs.
>> Yes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our 
>> understanding is deeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over 
>> 99% of the time because the equations are simpler and it?s more than 
>> accurate enough for most purposes. The same applies to Newtonian 
>> dynamics; 99% of the time you don?t have to care about relativistic 
>> mass increase with velocity. A million years from now, Newtonian 
>> gravity will still be applicable if there are humans on Earth. 
>> [Newton himself knew, by the way, that his theory wasn?t quite there 
>> ? he accepted instantaneous action at a distance most reluctantly 
>> because he could find no way around it. That?s been fixed now, though 
>> general relativity is still under persistent challenge (even special 
>> relativity is under an unusual degree of challenge at the moment from 
>> these neutrino experiments). If GR is superseded, it will still be 
>> useful in many domains though, because it?s a safe bet that the 
>> equations of the more accurate theory will be even harder.]
>> Zeus and witches are an entirely different kettle of fish.
>> > For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services.
>> > This is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with 
>> Lee -
>> > '[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original 
>> research
>> > on the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the 
>> experts who
>> > tell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject.
>> The experts don?t just tell me how it works, they produce extensive 
>> and consistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains 
>> and invite me to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that 
>> might invalidate them.
>> Lee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism 
>> to assail all notions of objective truth.
>> - Gerry Quinn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net