Quantiative Science Before Galileo
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Phone Jack
Next: SLA battery orientation?
From: Darwin123 on 14 Jul 2010 13:06 On Jul 12, 10:39 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > "The number of sig figs possible is inversely proportional to value of > the measurement." > > -- Bret's Tweaker Conjecture I am a physicist. I never said that biology is not a science. Like many physicists, I have worked on biological problems. However, I avoid contradicting qualified biologists except when they try to contradict qualified physicists. I have gotten a lot of help from biologists. If biology wasn't a science, I wouldn't ask their help. I try to be helpful when a biologist asks me a question. I know a lot of physicists who know next to nothing about biology. I think the percentage of physicists who don't know biology is greater than the percentage of biologists who don't know physics. However, I dismiss arguments made in ignorance no matter who makes them. The process of biological evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I dismiss this no matter who makes the argument. Sorry.
From: Bret Cahill on 14 Jul 2010 13:26 > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > Earth. > > > When did who believe that? > > > Bret Cahill > > The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as > meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience was > obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth. > However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700 > BC. > In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC > actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth. > Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or > about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle > Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous. > Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus > proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth. > There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth > was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and > were just trying to attract attention. > Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies > Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the > trip. > Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless > earth was still controversial in 650 BC. > There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or > around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name > and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till > Copernicus. Thanks. They had math and empirical / qualitative science before Galileo but science wasn't quantitative. To be sure a lot of AGW is empirical but even there the methods are better than before. Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific concensus so claiming atmospheric scientists could be making the same errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous. Bret Cahill
From: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 13:55 first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or, at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly, someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is, quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal justification for the algorithms of the GCMers. the more qualitative aspect of that page, is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather -- n'est, microclimate. my random reading of this shows that cold records are at least as common as hot records, whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase, global warming. just say, the climate she a changin', and rest easy! > Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific > concensus so claiming atmospheric scientists could be making the same > errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous. --Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?... Is the House Banking Bill, now before Senate, the same as cap&trade?... les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 13:59 grammar is just a part of the three Rs, the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave -- and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics." --Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?... Is the House Banking Bill, now before Senate, the same as cap&trade?... les ducs d'oil! http://wlym.com
From: keithw86 on 14 Jul 2010 14:43
On Jul 14, 12:26 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > > Earth. > > > > When did who believe that? > > > > Bret Cahill > > > The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as > > meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience was > > obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth. > > However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700 > > BC. > > In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC > > actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth. > > Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or > > about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle > > Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous. > > Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus > > proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth. > > There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth > > was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and > > were just trying to attract attention. > > Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies > > Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the > > trip. > > Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless > > earth was still controversial in 650 BC. > > There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or > > around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name > > and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till > > Copernicus. > > Thanks. > > They had math and empirical / qualitative science before Galileo but > science wasn't quantitative. Not true. Pi was rather well known 4K years ago. Earth's size has been known for some time, too. > To be sure a lot of AGW is empirical but even there the methods are > better than before. No, AGW's methods are even worse than nothing. The model *is* the experiment. If the computer and reality don't match, there must be something wrong with reality. > Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific > concensus so claiming atmospheric scientists could be making the same > errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous. No, it really isn't. There is no science in AGW. |