Golden Earring wrote: > Morning Arny! > > Not trying to score points, or indeed particularly to take issue your > position on the specific matter you were commenting on. > > However there is an important point of principle here. *-There are NO > scientific facts-*. There are facts (for example, the results of a > repeatable scientific experiment, with due regard to the precise > experimental procedures used and the exact conditions under which the > results were obtained), opinions (which are personal beliefs) & > scientific hypotheses that offer the potential to be testable either now > or in the future (these are theories proposed to explain some aspect of > how the universe works). > > "Hypotheses" that appear to be inherently untestable are actually just > opinions, unless some ingenious line of experimentation is later devised > (at which point they would become scientific hypotheses, although > possibly very briefly if the experiment doesn't go their way!). > > Even so-called Scientific Laws are just generally-accepted scientific > hypotheses, cf. Newton's "Law of Gravitation" which was widely accepted > for 300 years until Einstein supplanted the whole idea of gravity as a > force by introducing the concept of curvature in space-time. > > The significance of this is that until you have done an experiment you > cannot "know" the answer you can only predict it on the assumption that > the scientific hypothesis that you rely on will not crumble under you in > these new circumstances. > > This is the essence of the scientific method. Nothing is provable, all > is disprovable. Our knowledge of how the universe works is, and always > will be (in this life at least) provisional. > >
Sorta. Since you contradict yourself as follows: "There are NO scientific facts[/I][/B]. There are facts..." its hard to form a coherent summary of what you said above. The science I know starts out "All findings of science are provisional, only valid until better evidence is found and/or a better hypothesis is proposed." In that context words like *fact* are at best troublesome. What most people call facts are actually either hypothesis or evidence. Neither are guaranteed to be correct. Here's an idea - let us forget about talking about *facts* since they may not be what they seem. Experiments are just fishing expeditions, trying to gather some evidence, hopefully in a systematic and relevant way. People often don't distinguish Mathematics from Science. They are vastly different. Mathematics differs from Science in that while Science is about the natural physical world, Mathematics is artificial, and need not have any relationship at all to the physical world. An important part of Science are Mathematical models but they are actually just hypothesis stated in a certain formal way. In Mathematics everything is defined, and within those definitions a new Scientific hypothesis can be tested first for conformance with the relevant principles of Mathematics, but should also be tested for conformance with reality by means of physical experiments. There are a lot of models that are consistent enough as mathematical entities, but have been found to be completely irrelevant to reality. Others like Newton's laws of Motion are more than accurate enough in most of everyday life and even exceptional situations like planetary motion in the Solar system and most space travel as we know it today, but require Relativistic adjustments to be accurate and useful in an increasing number of exceptional situations like GPS and cell phone systems. I was taught Engineering by first equipping me with enough basic Mathematics (Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, and Calculus in that order) so that I could understand and benefit from some simple, generally accepted mathematical models of common physical systems. For example, without those basic elements of Math, the common models related to non-relativistic motion of real objects, electricity, and basic thermal processes are very difficult to understand. The study of Thermodynamics departs from the pattern set by the study of motion and electricity in that we quickly encounter math models that cannot or recently could not be derived from first principles, but are accurate based on observations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
