> > As I explained, I am on fence here. In physics, a theoretical > physicist clearly identifies the unproven assumptions, and experimental > physicists get right onto testing those assumptions. >
This isn't really true though. For instance string theory is controversial because no one really knows how to use it to make experimental predictions about anything currently measurable... > Further, they all work in the same Physics Building on the University, talk > things over with each over in the coffee room, etc. It is EXTREMELY rare for > someone like Einstein to figure something important out in a vacuum (no pun > intended). > Hmmm... the Institute for Advanced Study has no lab, for instance ... > > In summary, I completely agree that we need theoretical people. However, > once a theory is on the table you simply can't stop there. If you know > something/anything new about aging, there is probably someone out there > whose life you could easily save (at least for a few years) with that > knowledge. If no such person exists, then your "knowledge" is probably > situated within some useless paradigm. In short, at least with longevity, > there is simply no excuse for not trying things out, as there is certainly > no shortage of experimental subjects. > To me that's like saying: "if you know something/anything new about energy, there is probably some way you can make a better power plant with that knowledge." But science doesn't work that way.... It can be a long path from theoretical understanding to practical application, involving many people... Anyway this is getting way off-topic for the AGI list.. ben ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
