Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
On "proof" and science
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Solarpower wrote earlier that we must keep all avenues open until hard proof is obtained.
However, in science, there is no such thing. Or, at least very very seldom.
As anyone who does scientific research knows, it is quite impossible to "prove" a particular solution to a scientific problem to be "true" (that is, true for all times and conditions). Solutions of scientific problems are instead assessed for adequacy, that is, in respect to the extent to which the researcher's stated aims have been carried out.
Two categories of criteria are those related to argument and to the evidence presented. To judge adequacy then, we look for the strength and consistency of logical/mathematical arguments, and the goodness of fit of the data in a given context. By "goodness of fit" I mean that two different datasets on comparison are either strongly correlated or anti-correlated. As an example, the rate of growth of tree rings is strongly correlated to the level of activity of a particular sunspot cycle. There is agreement and an excellent "goodness of fit".
All such determinations of adequacy perform the same function for scientific research that quality control does for industry. Most importantly, no determination of adequacy can be rendered until and unless the research is published in a refereed journal. If I am asked to invest mental and emotional energy in some extraordinary (e.g. “supernatural”) claim or other, then what exactly are the rational criteria of adequacy by which I can judge that claim?
Can it be set against original and actual scientific hypotheses? Can it admit the basis of numerous empirical tests- and moreover- can it be susceptible to any form of prediction?
Of course, different theories of science represent different levels of abstraction: quantum theory is at a higher level than general relativity, and general relativity is at a higher level than Newton's theory of gravitation. But-- and here is the key point-- the limits of validity for each theory are ultimately founded in measurements, specifically through careful experiments carried out to test predictions.
Did Einstein's general relativity theory "disprove" Newton's theory of universal gravitation? No, it did not. It showed that in highly refined domains Newton's theory could not explain certain exotic phenomena, such as the bending of starlight near a massive object, or the the advance of Mercury's perihelion. Einstein's could. We have the data to prove it.
However, and this is important, Newton's theory remains quite valid (and useful!) in the realm of ordinary celestial mechanics - e.g. in getting space craft to Mars, or Venus.
In reality, the only realm where hard core exatamundo proof prevails is in the proof of theorems of mathematics.
Waiting for some exalted 100% proof of man-made greenhouse warming - while finding excuses to do nothing policy -wise, is a recipe for human extinction.
-
More disgusting lies
[Read the article: Labor war on drugs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]KStone (aka "Thrasher") wrote:
Btw, Hank Aaron admitted to taking a greenie once. Yeah...right. I guess they were unlike Lay's potato chips. He really could just stop at one.
Aaron never took a Riccola, far less a "greenie". You need to come off the lithium, at least for five nanoseconds before you (or your alter-ego 'Trasher') reply. Aaron is stand up, a noble citizen, who did civic work in Milwaukee when he was there, and then in Atlanta. He is an inspiration to all black kids that possess half a brain, as opposed to being on a hip hop jag. And coke for brains.
As for buggering. I understand from the recent 'Playboy' piece that Bonds even tried it with a pit bull. It seems, as his gf noted, that's how hiw willie cut chopped down to 2 cm. The only thing he can "bugger" now is a cupcake.
Later, asshole.
-
Phins' best chance is this W/E
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Dolphins' best chance for a 'W' is this Sunday, with the Baltimore Ravens - who have lost 7 straight, and have nearly as many problems as the Phins.
Kyle Boller will be starting for the Ravens, and he has a number of negative tendencies - including: staring down receivers, panicking, melting down in the red zone- tossing picks, and lousy foot work. McGahee, if he runs well, may be the only card in the deck - but I am predicting the Phins will stack the line with seven, maybe eight - like NE did in the last ten mins. of the Monday night game with the Ravens. They will then dare Boller to throw long.
On the defensive side, both Ravens' star corners, Chris McCallister and Samari Rolle will be out - replaced by two rooks. Meanwhile, Cleo Lemon will be the Dolphins' QB and he has shown he CAN throw the long ball, and more importantly get into the end zone- unlike John Beck.
The game will likely turn on which team makes the most turnovers. That team will likely lose.
I think Miami also has an emotional edge, given Wayne Huizenga just announced that there will be a half-time commemoration and celebration of the perfect, '72 team. Think the current wants to lay a duck egg with that background???
And for reference, let's recall the game some five yrs. ago when the Ravens' melted down and lost in another Miami game - and Marino's career was being celebrated at half time.
It pays to have these special celebrations when you are against the wall.
Prediction: Miami 14 Ravens 10