On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:26:25 +0100, "patrik bagge"
<patrik-b at online.no> said:
> ok agreed, but obtaining success killing yourself has a tiny
> little element of contradiction in it. normally success is
> associated with a little 'good'
As others have tried to explain to you, that is not the case in
>>>> The concept of the success of a theory is at least
>>>> somewhat well-defined as its ability to explain (and predict) reality,
>>>> has little or nothing to do with its practical application (and, of
>>>> 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
>>>>> ok, good answer, you contradict yourself a little bit,
>>>> Where are the contradictions?
> if one should consider, predicting weather, building a computer
> a 'practical application' then the science enabling us to do this
> has something 'to do' behind the scenes.
I don't think you understood what he wrote, nor the concept of
"success" for a scientific theory.
The contradiction is all in _your_ mind.
>> No, he states that practical application has occurred before, not that
>> practical consequences _must_ follow.
> if consequences do not follow, ever, do you think that the
> science will be alive&kicking, gaining success, despite of it's
> lack of consequences ?
We're not saying that consequences don't ever follow. This is not an
either-or thing. If I say that a car has been green once, it doesn't
mean that I claim it won't ever be green again.
> (let's not get into marketing/religion here..)
Why not? You're already discussing science based on a lacking grasp
of concepts, reality and matters of faith ...
BTW: octopuses are much better and two orders of magnitude faster for
changing color, and they support bump-mapped textures!
- Bernd Paysan on comp.arch, 1999-11-20,
discussing "chameleon processors"