- This topic is empty.
January 15, 2021 at 21:40 #65083N_
I doubt that better rules are applied today, e.g. for dark matter or string theory, than once were applied for phlogiston, or for Charles Darwin’s “gemmules” – it’s just that some more itty-bitty stuff is known. Scientists are in the same business as they were then, but perhaps cockier about it and more blinkered in that sense even if they do know more of the itty-bitty stuff. Isaac Newton after all had a breadth of interests that allowed him to be keen on alchemy and the study of prophecy. An especially high concentration of cockiness is observable among some of those whose profession is computer programming. Some seriously believe the world is expressible as a number and each human being is too. They don’t see what’s wrong with believing that “communication is the transfer of information”. No wonder the job attracts almost exclusively males. Nobody talks about artificial emotional intelligence, thank goodness.January 15, 2021 at 22:40 #65087ET
“I doubt that better rules are applied today, e.g. for dark matter or string theory, than once were applied for phlogiston……”
You could easily find out if you were so inclined.
“Isaac Newton after all had a breadth of interests that allowed him to be keen on alchemy and the study of prophecy.”
Sure, so he was a product of his time and was misdirected in some areas. His theory of gravity is still used today to send rockets to space.
Science builds upon science. I seem to remember a recent post from you referring to Skinnerian conditioning. Easy to pick and mix what suits?
So N_, by what criteria do you choose which science is valid to make your point and which isn’t, again to make your point?
All scientific inquiry is what exactly? Not even sure of your point if there is one.
You should write a doomsday sci-fi novel, I’ll suggest a title “The N_th Armageddon.”January 15, 2021 at 23:10 #65088Dave
You just have, thanks. You’re a helpful mod.
- The topic ‘SARS cov2 and Covid 19’ is closed to new replies.