3 ms·

> "We're using a direct measurement..." Wrong. See, this is the type of thing I'm talking about. There is only one way to make a direct measurement and it in

> "We're using a direct measurement..." Wrong. See, this is the type of thing I'm talking about. There is only one way to make a direct measurement and it involves a time machine. I'm not saying that to be pedantic. That is only way to prove this technique and/or others like it are absolutely correct. While I applaud this man's effort and his approach, I'm skeptical of the results given the difficulty of problem at hand and methodology used. Let's make sure to call it what it is. Another method of estimation.

lorenzhs 10y ago
We can never reach absolute certainty. Improving existing approximations of the truth is the best we can hope to achieve. If you only accept absolute unquestionable truth then I recommend you have a look at the history of science. Lots of what was the state of research in the past is now known not to have been entirely correct, sometimes even outright false. But we need to make incremental progress towards the goal of understanding the world, even if we sometimes get it wrong. That is the moly thing that opens the path for new discoveries. Following your reasoning, these surpassed results are worthless and were no good even when they were found. But in the grand scheme of things they are what enabled later researchers to uncover better and more accurate results. Oh and if you weren't so focused on absolute truth, you might have noticed that natural sciences concern themselves with models of reality, because nature is freakishly complex and if one doesn't settle for some approximation of reality. Otherwise one wouldn't get anywhere trying to solve the simplest problem.
- IanDrake 10y ago
  So we agree then? Models in natural since need to be cross verified by multiple findings using various methodologies. Each model and method adding to the evidence of our understanding and the probability that we got it right. In this case, the new methodology refutes the prior one. So, instead of adding the evidence that current models are right, this creates a new hypothesis, for which currently only this one model seems to agree with. So, I get what you're saying about there will never be an absolute truth, but I hope you get what I'm saying about how this one finding alone means little in terms of being conclusive.

lorenzhs 10y ago

We can never reach absolute certainty. Improving existing approximations of the truth is the best we can hope to achieve. If you only accept absolute unquestionable truth then I recommend you have a look at the history of science. Lots of what was the state of research in the past is now known not to have been entirely correct, sometimes even outright false. But we need to make incremental progress towards the goal of understanding the world, even if we sometimes get it wrong. That is the moly thing that opens the path for new discoveries. Following your reasoning, these surpassed results are worthless and were no good even when they were found. But in the grand scheme of things they are what enabled later researchers to uncover better and more accurate results. Oh and if you weren't so focused on absolute truth, you might have noticed that natural sciences concern themselves with models of reality, because nature is freakishly complex and if one doesn't settle for some approximation of reality. Otherwise one wouldn't get anywhere trying to solve the simplest problem.

IanDrake 10y ago
So we agree then? Models in natural since need to be cross verified by multiple findings using various methodologies. Each model and method adding to the evidence of our understanding and the probability that we got it right. In this case, the new methodology refutes the prior one. So, instead of adding the evidence that current models are right, this creates a new hypothesis, for which currently only this one model seems to agree with. So, I get what you're saying about there will never be an absolute truth, but I hope you get what I'm saying about how this one finding alone means little in terms of being conclusive.