Re: Lightspeed exceeded


"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20090930182305.3ad75d31.jethomas5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
PD <thedraperfamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In science, all sets of axioms are treated more or less on an equal
playing field. Then their consequences are played out, and the set of
axioms that yields the largest number of accurate predictions in as
wide a set of circumstances as possible is the one that wins.

Well, no.

There are surely people who play a game like that. Some of them are even
people who have professional credentials as scientists, to their shame.

But in actual science, if a set of axioms fails once then it is
incorrect.

That set can be used as an approximation over a known range of
circumstances where it is known to give adequately close results. But it
is not "the one that wins".

The fact that there are people who play this game is no reason to
legitimise it. It is not science. It is something else.

I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
===========================================
The lying bigot Phuckwit Duck doesn't live by his own morality.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .Simple SR question...
    ... Tee hee, mighty cute, lots of word soup but no experiments or math, Phuckwit Duck! ... Go ahead and demoralize ... to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking ... intent was to educate in the context of discussion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: superlumnal velocities and relativistic mass
    ... to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking ... intent was to educate in the context of discussion, ... [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to ... Blah boom, blah boom, blah boom! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_KE_=3D_=BD_mv=5E2_is_disproved_in_a_new_falling_objec?= =?ISO-8859&
    ... no. Phuckwit Duck chases his own tail like a confused duck. ... to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking ... intent was to educate in the context of discussion, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: superlumnal velocities and relativistic mass
    ... to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking ... intent was to educate in the context of discussion, ... [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to ... Blah boom, blah boom, blah boom! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Infinities and infinitesimals
    ... There is nothing "cranky" about being skeptical of any of the axioms of ZF, ... modern mathematics takes on many of the ... Walks like a duck, ...
    (sci.math)