Re: Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.

On Thu, 28 May 2009 00:46:51 +0200, "Bill Sloman"
<bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


On May 27, 4:24 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 03:24:16 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 27, 3:39 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 18:30:38 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:bpoo15lkldnlbnmmjjil07629717bpkiap@xxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

"Goddidit" is not an intellectually satisfying answer.

Again, when anyone even suggests that nature does not work exactly
as
the establishment has agreed that she works, someone will accuse the
speakers of being religiously motivated. That's not very
intellectually satisfying either.

Electronic design requires speculation. Show me an electronic design
organization that discourages speculation and I'll show you a
company
that's headed down.

It's so hard to get people to play with ideas, especially in public.

I wonder why we get so many viral infections. Sharks are almost
immune
to viruses.

John

John, I notice that even though you don't post anything to make me
think you
are religious, you get accuses of being religious just because you
dare to
question the holiness of evolution. Just wondering why they label you
that
way?

RogerN

It's worse that that. I don't question evolution, I speculate on
mechanisms. I believe in evolution *more* than most of the people
here. They just won't allow themselves to consider the implications of
evolution; speculation is slapped down, not riffed on.

Foolish and ill-informed speculations get slapped down - John isn't
equipped to produce anything better.

Of course I am. I speculate a lot in the physical and biological
sciences. I do it with scientists. The good ones work with me, and we
invent new things. My electronics and systems thinking complements
their scientific knowledge.

I suspect that your contribution is more along the lines of reducing other
peoples blue-sky speculations to something that can be realised in practice,
rather than providing much scientific input. Seeing how stuff can be made to
work is a rare and valuable skill, and I'm not knocking it, but it doesn't
mean that you can come up with useful speculations on your own.

Of course I can. Before we meet, I go online, to libraries, and buy
absurdly expensive books and cram on their science. By the time we
meet, I have a pretty good idea of the science - enough to quantify
basic stuff - and I have a pretty good idea of what are the
fundamental measurement limits and how close current instruments are
getting. And I know their terminology. A fresh look at things, by an
ee, can often shake things up.

We're working with some well-published physical chemists now, trying
to improve an expensive instrument that they designed. My target is a
sensitivity improvement of 80:1, maybe better if certain things are
so, and maybe 15x throughput. These guys really know chemistry, but
they are truly rotten with electricity. We have to work and think
together to make this happen.


Part of the business of brainstorming is recognising the good ideas and
side-lining the bad ones; not an area where you seem to have any particular
talent, granting your enthusiasm for the dafter ideas of the intelligent
designers and the global warming deniers.

Wrong again, as usual.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/NIF3.jpg

This ain't the only one.

Any good EE with an interest in science, and who is willing to do some
homework, is likely to be able to work with scientists and improve
instrument performance. And it's fun to work with lasers and atom
probes and accelerators and spectrometers and stuff without the hassle
of the masters-PhD-postdoc thing. Even you, maybe.

John



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>> the definition of science to exclude IDiocy. ... Who knows what the heck the court will delve into. ... >>> As far as I know, the multiverse hypothesis is speculation that's not really testable ... > We still count him as one of the greatest scientists of all time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism
    ... >how science operates. ... >testable hypothesis involves a lot of speculation, imagination, ... This does not stem from a long deceased view of how science operates. ... It stems from a current view of how scientists operate. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism
    ... >> to verify universality of what as scientists we propose for science. ... >> imagination and speculation reign supreme. ... >> universally is what then becomes part of the edifice of science. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.
    ... blind faith. ... Too many scientists fear the accusation of being religious, ... You seem to think that science is over. ... your stating that I "accuse" ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.
    ... the establishment has agreed that she works, someone will accuse the ... I believe in evolution *more* than most of the people ... speculation is slapped down, ... I do it with scientists. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)