[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Theory vs. Actual
interpetation is proof of anything. neither is a theory. neither is a
discussion. doing something and finding a result, now thats proof. Call
me pragmatic, but frankly i've never heard of any of those things but i
know when my stove gets hot, it glows red, just like a light bulb and
for that matter a fire. and there you have it. the theory of common
sense. i saw it. it's real. without empirical research, logistical data,
or archaic theorys.
interpetation? can anyone here in common terms explain the difference
between interpetation and perception? personnally i dont think it can be
done convinvingly, they are tied together. perception is 99% of life. if
you perceive it true then for you it is. more to the point, science is
the art of theory. to prove and disprove. the world is flat. the sun
revolves around us. the atom is the smallest element. the
electron,proton is smallest. wait we cut that open and crap spilled out.
oops. co2 dissolved, co2 not dissolved.
the point is that tom tried and it worked, can it be replicated without
a grant funded science experiment? then i like it and i'll use it. thats
what matters real world proof, that is easily replicated in any number
of varying conditions. say like a gas engine. and funny enough most
science is created by guys who have no idea what empirical means. they
have whats called common sense.
look sorry. i'm just tired of the crazy arguments on these subjests and
suddenly the subject is gone with no answer gained, no progress
acheived, only to be replaced by more of the same with a new subject
heading. thats why i like tom. he did it, it worked. he tried to
replicate it. it worked. he may get the deep down science but he doesnt
push it on anyone, he does what almost every great inventor has ever
done. he proved it with real world applications.
and folks thats science to me.
Liz Wilhite wrote:
>On 9/23/05, Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz> wrote:
>>Liz Wilhite wrote:
>>>The whole point that most everyone else has been trying to make is that
>>>is not the data that is at issue, it's the interpretation.
>>The interpretation comes from the data. Ever heard of GIGO (Garbage In,
>>Garbage Out)? Noisy data means a noisy result.
> No, the interpretation doesn't come from the data. Ever heard of the Raman
>effect? Triplet-triplet annihilation? Singlet-triplet transitions? Effects
>of minor comformational changes on the absorption and emission properties of
>of large, flexible organic molecules? All of these were discovered from data
>that were imprecise at best. More precise data didn't improve the concepts
>or the understanding of the concepts one iota.
> Entire branches of knowledge in physics, chemistry and biology have been
>created by people who were bright and knew how to interpret imprecise data.
>Interpretation springs from the mind, and not all of them are created
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com