> technologists—scientists/engineers—instead of a committee of 3 making the
> final decision about the theory.
>
> Bob
>
> *From:* Ruby
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 8:09 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
Thank you Bob for clarifying that.
I did not know what you meant.
I do agree, science should not reject obvious data -by definition!
Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect to
see,
so
* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
That is to say "accept the experimental results and form a theory
around the data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model.
The contextual meaning says
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
Bob, you are quoting out of context.
I am guessing you did not read the paper yet, for in this case, "the obvious"
refers to "the scientific results".
That is to say "accept the experimental results
Bob, you are quoting out of context.
I am guessing you did not read the paper yet, for in this case, "the
obvious" refers to "the scientific results".
That is to say "accept the experimental results and form a theory
around the data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model.
The contextual
Peter--
You quoted Ed Storms as follows:
“Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the
impossible” (Ed Storms)
IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying to
explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real phenomen
6 matches
Mail list logo
