Re: Things Formulaic

Al wrote:
As physicists only seem to be able to communicate in mathematical terms

Why do you think so? Try reading some actual physical articles. They contain usually additional to the equations *lots* of text. Without the text, the equations would mean nothing.


I thought you might be interested in this equation?
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL It's the Drake equation and possibly the most
discussed of recent times. Not one of the variables can be given a value.
Even N* is uncertain as the number of stars in our galaxy is an estimate.
I watched a TV program recently in which the progress of economists over the
last few decades was discussed.


TV program? On which channel? How sure are you that they are reliable?


They use similar formulas 

Would be news to me.


and all have
failed, without exception. The question is, Why do they fail? The answer is
that, contrary to scientific thought; there are some things in this world
that do not lend themselves to scientific dismemberment or repeatability.

> This is an axiom.

No, that's an unsupported assertion.




Until this is understood, science will continue to try to
dehumanise the rest of us.


Science tries nothing like that.


The idea that only subjects that have been given
the OK by science are acceptable is narrow minded and dishonest.


No scientist I'm aware of has that idea.


For
instance: The utterance that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
is only used in reference to no-scientific paradigm ideas.

Wrong. It's an entirely sensible claim, which should be used essentially always and everywhere.


Bye,
Bjoern
.

Relevant Pages

  • Things Formulaic
    ... As physicists only seem to be able to communicate in mathematical terms I ... failed, without exception. ... that do not lend themselves to scientific dismemberment or repeatability. ... the OK by science are acceptable is narrow minded and dishonest. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Benefits of Dynamic Typing
    ... The latter problem is detected in parts not specific to the compiler, ... and the only information about the reason is carried by the exception ... the entire Map call fails with the same exception. ... but it did expect that some application might fail. ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: IllegalArgumentException vs. NullPointerException and collection behavior
    ... There is an advantage to declaring a checked exception - it forces client programmers to pay attention to it. ... The trouble with throwing any RuntimeException is that the API clients might fail abruptly because their programmers didn't pay close enough attention to the Javadocs. ... Throw a checked Exception if the client should have been able to count on getting a result, and you want to force awareness of any out-of-band problems. ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE vs. NULL
    ... 0 (zero) can never be a valid handle value. ... Of course, ReadFilewill fail with this handle, ... > CloseHandle() does indeed fail when given a bad handle. ... > case it raises an exception. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: Try..Except fails. Also - any other ways?
    ... case - you see, the file i'm testing on - a log file, is getting logged ... it fail, or if it does fail - for this to be handled. ... Btw - Any ideas why the catch-all exception handling didn't work either ... You will get a 'bad' Handle -1 if FileOpen fails ...
    (comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc)