Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Hmmm … I don't think the Laws of Physics are 'inviolate' at all. A 'Law' is a phenomenon that has been observed many times, and no contrary examples found, that it is accepted as a universal phenomenon .. but that doesn't mean that exceptions don't exist. By the same token, if these exceptions are found in the future, this doesn't necessarily rule out everything which the Law has already explained to date, either.
|
Do you know what science we will know 100 years into the future?? I don't either. That's why any progress we will make might change our views completely. Have a look at what we knew 100 years ago compared to now. Go back another 100 years and compare. Another 100. Exceptions don't necessarily rule everything out, but the chances of complete change are not neglible and the further into the future you go the greater the chance for change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I think in the previous post, was it the one about the Uncertainty Principle ? .. not sure (??) … but in this, they have developed a way to make momentum and distance measurements such that the present interpretation of the 'Principle' is still valid. Principles are precepts anyway, so rewording them shouldn't be a problem either.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I think my point is there are limits to which we'd have to constrain our thinking when looking only 100 years in the future. Regardless of whether these limits are right or not in 50 or 100 years time, (who would ever know this in the present, anyway), funding is only ever justified in today's terms and today's known environments. I think this is what Bert was addressing, and I think he's being very realistic.
|
The limits are only self imposed. So is any funding, but most funding in any case is based on the economic cycle and the whims of politicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
So where would you draw the line between science and pseudoscience when it comes to the speculation/fantasy stage ?
Why is not speculation/fantasy not pseudoscience, especially when bidding for funding ?
I'm not out to have a go at you specifically here, either … I'm actually very interested to see the final bids in this 'competition'.
I reckon it'll be a good eye-opener for us all !
Cheers |
In the speculation/fantasy stage, the line between what could be called "the science" and the "pseudoscience" is very blurred in any case. It all depends on where your knowledge stands at that particular moment. It's only through further research and evidence that the lines start to become clearer. But there will always be a boundary between them where they blend....on the "cutting edge" so to speak. Although, it's more like a spectrum of light with a gradual gradation between the colours.
All science, to various degrees, is pseudoscience when it comes to funding and given most politicians complete lack of scientific understanding, it might as well be all fantasy and/or fiction.
Some pseudoscience is just science waiting to be discovered, but most of the pseudoscience we do see these days can be reasonably dismissed using what we know now, and can reasonably speculate as to what may be known in the near future. Like the EU, for instance. It doesn't take a new scientific paradigm to show where it's at fault. In order for that to change, they would have to come up with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that was not only observable but also concurred with their theories and superseded present theory...meaning a better explanation for what we see occurring. So far, they have failed miserably in all departments.