>>>>> 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).
>> 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.
Obvious Topic:
concept of success in science = ability to explain
and predict reality , period.
that's fine with me.
example of predicting reality = weatherprognosis
do we agree?
if we do, the connection is obvious to my little mind.
the connection is in the concept/word 'reality'
even Maynard mentioned the concept of
correlation with 'experimental results' in reality
if we still agree, then we can connect
a successfull science with 'successfull weatherprognosis'
Less Obvious Topic:
balanced answer, with only a little fine
touch of insult at the end
/pat
