Re: [APD] Science

[urville <urville at peoplepc_com>]

Rachel Sandage wrote:

> No, there are millions of definitive facts. If you drop an apple, it will
>fall. 
>

I would call that a theory. would the same thing happen on the moon? how 
do you know?
IOs it true in every circumstance on every planet and body. Because 
thats how it works around here. Well that doesnt work accroding to blah 
blah's law of blah blah. my apologies to blah blah.

>If you watch the motion of the planets, they move in a particular way.
>  
>
Is it the same in every system? It wouldnt be a definitive fact that 
applied to every circumstance would it? But that IS what I'm talking 
about so 90% of what your arguing i'm not arguing. You missed my whole 
point.

>If you put x amount of sugar in y amount of water at z degrees, it will or
>will not entirely dissolve, depending on the amount of sugar and the amount
>and temperature of water. 
>

ah dependant. and in a zero g room is it the same? how about altitude 
does that factor it's certainly not the same everywhere is it?

>These are scientific facts and they will not
>change - 
>
but they do change. but comparing what happens on the moon and what 
happens on earth  or better yet every planet and body and saying they 
are the same thing is exactly like saying this law applies all around. 
again you didnt get the point i was trying to make. my apologies.

>or do your apples float around when they come off the tree?
> Where bad science comes in is in the scientist's interpretation of the
>facts. Newon observed that apples fall, but he had the wrong reason. Early
>astronomers watched the planets move, and insisted that they were revolving
>around the earth - even if it meant that the planets had to somehow stop and
>go backwards.
>  
>
ok theres a piece of what i was saying.

> So if someone comes up with a hypothesis (an idea based on observation,
>which is tested by experimentation to become a theory) 
>
a theory at its simplest right. I'm pretty sure this will happen because

>which says that the
>physical behavior of something is different from what other people say it is
>then that needs to be proved.
>
i'd say 85% of science if not more is theory.

>  It's not Enough to say "I saw it, and so it is true", because your interpretation of what
>you see may be proved. 
>
i disagree. it's enough for me. we have now moved from fact to opinion. 
it's not enough for you. please dont torture me with it because after 
ages of arguing and research and you say eureka it happens because, i 
wont care cause it worked for me and i moved on long ago.

>Increased plant growth doesn't necessarily mean that
>a physical law has been violated - 
>
did i say that? i dont think i did

>in fact, they may be completely
>unrelated. No-one is disagreeing with Tom about the increased plant growth -
>just about his claim that it proves that a scientific theory about the
>dissolution of gas in liquid is wrong.
>  
>
and that proves what? your missing the point.you'll all argue ntil it's 
forgotten and next week we'll all be talking about light again. No 
papers will come of it, and it will disintergrate into nothing. Again my 
point is why waste your time arguing it. Have your opinion, or fact if 
you must. But dont argue it so passive aggressively, lose the 
tones/attitude, and practice some humility.

> There is a crisis of scientific education in this country, and your
>statement that there are no definitive facts is just one facet of it.
>
i disagree. plain and simple. I think it's your immediate attack on my 
belief and that mentality thats wrong with science today. It's that I'm 
so much smarter than you attitude. I'm sure kids love studying science 
only to have some pompous person gloating over them with ideas that 
probably wont last through the next ten years. That wouldnt have 
ANYTHING to do with it would it. I mean that kind of attitude wo0uldnt 
drive common people from trying to learn would it? I see the same thing 
in IT. I'm an IT. and most of my co-workers, and IT's i've met treat the 
common user like garbage and complain constantly about how dense they 
are. Nice of them to try to teach. thus making the user informed rather 
than insulted, which makes them figure its easier not to try. And it's 
no different here.

> The
>whys may change, but the facts just don't - or would you like to stand under
>a suspended piano and see what happens when I cut the rope?
>  
>
can we do it on another planet? funny cause i think quite some time ago 
there was a highly regarded scientific mind who would say the piano 
would crush me on any body in this universe, maybe he would have even 
said, and thats a fact. i wonder. i'm trying to steer this the proper 
direction gently as possible here.

> Rachel
>_______________________________________________
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants