The connection that your mind seems to resist is that, while the accuracy of
weather prediction does in fact help in validating the theory behind it, the
coincidence that accurate weather prediction is a matter of practical
interest has no bearing on the 'success' of that theory.
Or, if that sentence is too difficult, let's try this one: The 'success' of
a theory (by the definition I gave) is defined by its ability to predict,
but is not related to whether anyone is interested in, or can benefit from,
what it predicts.
Patrik Bagge <pab at neramd.no> wrote in message
news:K8b%3.2898$QA6.185207808 at news.telia.no...
> >>>>> The concept of the success of a theory is at least
> >>>>> somewhat well-defined as its ability to explain (and predict)
> >> and
> >>>>> has little or nothing to do with its practical application (and, of
> >> course,
> >>>>> practical application of many abstruse physical theories has
> >>>>> 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