Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!boulder!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!news2!pogo.den.mmc.com!virdy
From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Message-ID: <1994Dec10.215502.28816@news2.den.mmc.com>
Sender: news@news2.den.mmc.com (News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: pogo.den.mmc.com
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 21:55:02 GMT
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97659 sci.psychology:31354 sci.physics:103054 sci.philosophy.meta:15481 sci.bio:23864 comp.ai.philosophy:23519

In article <3cbv1f$ooa@pobox.csc.fi>, Lauri Gr|hn <grohn@finsun.csc.fi> wrote:
>In <3ca5mf$3un@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> A.R.Diller@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller) writes:
>
>>Only that everything found in science books is still only conjectural.
>	
>	Really? Do you mean that "the truth value" of science books
>is on the same level as any new age "it is so because I feel it so"
>fantasy?
>

As growing up would have it, our impressionable minds are bombarded with
information and misinformation daily. To safegaurd some of us from
making serious errors of judgements, books are categorized as Fiction,
Non-Fiction (that's Anti-Fiction), Fantasy, Romance, etc.

Your arguing that's not good enough. In the science field alone, there
are competing theories. Which is better? Obviously, the one which you
are the author of. But does it work? Does it answer physical questions
about the substance of Nature?

Diller is just suggesting what others often say. We don't know if our
models are right. They work sometimes in someplaces and depending on who
is doing the rounding off error estimates, etc. Even if we are wrong
about the "TRUE" workings of Nature, then we'll discover it by the
self-correcting scientific methodology. There is no reason to save the
public from speculative thinking. Have you ever read any children's
books and tried to correct them for their "truth value"? It's pretty
pictures and whatever...

Reality is going to only influence those who give a damn about what the
REAL is. Without speculation, no progress can be made. It's easy to
decide which ideas are scientifically valid in the subcontexts of the
field in which a theory is purposed. No ignoramous moron comes up with a
theory. Even the formulation of a wrong idea takes creative powers.
Knowing why an idea is wrong, i.e., speculative in negative sense, is
one step closer to the truth.

Mahipal,
d(me)=function of Internet Discussions.



