5 ms·

Huh? He was advocating for finding a principle and taking it to the extreme. He wasn't discouraging it. Yes, he said that sometimes it won't work; but the whol

by lambda 14y ago

Huh? He was advocating for finding a principle and taking it to the extreme. He wasn't discouraging it. Yes, he said that sometimes it won't work; but the whole point of the article is that you can discover and learn new things when you try taking one principle to its logical conclusion. Where did you get the idea that he was arguing against that?

wissler 14y ago
Yes, he said to try new principles, he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles. That would be an argument against science, which labors under the same constraint (i.e. with rare exception, things don't work), but as it turns out it really isn't an argument against science at all, because the rare "thing that works" tends to change the world.
  - wissler 14y ago
    "That would be an argument against science" No. Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison. Apart from the fact the "great science" isn't the topic of discussion, on the contrary: in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence.
      - wissler 14y ago
        "in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence." That's a rather grandiose claim. Where's your supporting evidence?
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Where's your supporting evidence? Modern times is my evidence. The reason the Church didn't burn Galileo at the stake in 1633, as they did Bruno in 1600, is, not because they didn't want to, but because public awareness of science, of the value of comparing ideas to reality, had changed enough in that interval to make it a practical impossibility. And that was just 33 years. The single most important manifestation of science is the general increase in everyday scientific reasoning, not the specialized form of science practiced by professionals, as important as the latter surely is. Professional, high-level science gives us vaccines and modern medicine, certainly very valuable. Everyday science gives us the notion that an unfamiliar idea or claim must be accompanied by evidence. The second trumps the first.
        wissler 14y ago
        Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man for refraining from abusing Galileo. IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. What? Are your reading what I'm posting? There was no mob, there was an all-powerful Church. It was the Church, not the public, who objected to what Galileo had to say and who put him on trial. > But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man ... You completely missed the point of this history lesson. The reason Galileo didn't share Bruno's fate wasn't Galileo, it was the common man. Times and perceptions had changed. Galileo and the common man both benefited. Everyone moved ahead except the Church. The Church wasn't reluctant to burn Galileo at the stake because of his discoveries. Quite the contrary -- he was prosecuted for precisely those insights and the degree to which they contradicted Church dogma. But they could only go so far, because of public relations and changing times. > IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse. Since I did no such thing, I don't have to defend it. It's clear from what you're posting that you have no clue about this historical period, so ... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galile...

by lambda 14y ago

wissler 14y ago

Yes, he said to try new principles, he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles.

lutusp 14y ago
> he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles. That would be an argument against science, which labors under the same constraint (i.e. with rare exception, things don't work), but as it turns out it really isn't an argument against science at all, because the rare "thing that works" tends to change the world.
- wissler 14y ago
  "That would be an argument against science" No. Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison. Apart from the fact the "great science" isn't the topic of discussion, on the contrary: in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence.
    - wissler 14y ago
      "in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence." That's a rather grandiose claim. Where's your supporting evidence?
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Where's your supporting evidence? Modern times is my evidence. The reason the Church didn't burn Galileo at the stake in 1633, as they did Bruno in 1600, is, not because they didn't want to, but because public awareness of science, of the value of comparing ideas to reality, had changed enough in that interval to make it a practical impossibility. And that was just 33 years. The single most important manifestation of science is the general increase in everyday scientific reasoning, not the specialized form of science practiced by professionals, as important as the latter surely is. Professional, high-level science gives us vaccines and modern medicine, certainly very valuable. Everyday science gives us the notion that an unfamiliar idea or claim must be accompanied by evidence. The second trumps the first.
        wissler 14y ago
        Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man for refraining from abusing Galileo. IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. What? Are your reading what I'm posting? There was no mob, there was an all-powerful Church. It was the Church, not the public, who objected to what Galileo had to say and who put him on trial. > But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man ... You completely missed the point of this history lesson. The reason Galileo didn't share Bruno's fate wasn't Galileo, it was the common man. Times and perceptions had changed. Galileo and the common man both benefited. Everyone moved ahead except the Church. The Church wasn't reluctant to burn Galileo at the stake because of his discoveries. Quite the contrary -- he was prosecuted for precisely those insights and the degree to which they contradicted Church dogma. But they could only go so far, because of public relations and changing times. > IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse. Since I did no such thing, I don't have to defend it. It's clear from what you're posting that you have no clue about this historical period, so ... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galile...