>> >It's not clear that any of the points (save possibly the last) you
>mention
hahaha, the last is a bit _tricky_ isn't it ?
>> >are relevant to measuring the success of a theory, however: they only
>> >relate to its applications.
yes, theory->application->reality->truth, it's a nice thing isn't it ?
>> bill, we are living in a practical 'reality' aren't we ?
>> what good is a 'theory' if it doesn't 'lead anywhere' ?
>>Your statements didn't address 'what good' the theory might be, just how
>successful it was.
and the difference is ?
> The concept of the success of a theory is at least
>somewhat well-defined as its ability to explain (and predict) reality, and
>has little or nothing to do with its practical application (and, of course,
>practical application of many abstruse physical theories has occurred
>decades or more after the they were formulated, so evaluating 'what good' a
>theory may be is rather difficult in the absense of reliable precognition).
ok, good answer, you contradict yourself a little bit, But anyway,
state that a theory of substance _must_ lead to practical
conseqiences (shit word), sooner or later ...
Regards from a Troll
Patrik Bagge
