Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Excellent Question -- Up To A Point

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by H.S.Sapiens on November 7, 2002 04:56:33 UTC

Maybe Nicholas has hung up by now. I hope Ruquist, Harv and bruce will hang up now too.
Or honestly admit their errors, apologize sincerely, and move on to a decent dialogue.

Science seeks to explain, control and predict.
Nicholas if Princeton demands that Ray predict! --which is only one role of science and cannot be accomplished in some phases of a sequence of discoveries.

Check this out -- I'm not consulting any book,
but I am THINKING.

1) If you control a phenomenon,
predicting its outcome is specious. You can
only measure the effectiveness of your control.

2) Attempts to EXPLAIN phenomena come before each of SEVERAL CYCLES of measurment. It is certainly a rookie error to pretend you can devise equations or even gather data without having an explanation for what data may be sought.
Nicholas, though he might not exist, is a ROOKIE ROOKIE ROOKIE ROOKIE ROOKIE ROOKIE ROOKIE
and he made a ROOKIE ERROR...LOTS OF THEM!
Hey, they do it in baseball :)

Gregor Mendel's science was only crudely mathematical

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins