On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 06:09 PM, Moose wrote:
You are confounding 2 things here, theory and empirical testing.
Luminous Landscape presents empirical tests that are quite compelling.
He doesn't say "Assuming that........", but "Here is the methodology
and here are the results."
Once Gallileo conducted his test of gravity on falling bodies, no
amount of logical argument which disagreed with the results, no matter
how much it's proponents wished to believe it, was of any use or
meaning. Einstein's Theories of Relativity are some of the most
powerful and elegant theories about the nature and behavior of matter
and energy ever created. Nevertheless, physicists are constantly
looking for empicical ways to test them. I just read about another
experiment a few weeks ago. So far, the theories hold up, but one
repeatable failure and into the dustbin of science they go.
Theory cannot stand in the face of experience to the contrary.
Bumblebees fly around my yard all the time without the aid of
aeronautical engineers. Unless you can find a flaw or fakery in the
Luminous Landscape tests, theory avails nothing. The way it works is
that empirical tests prove theory to be fishy (or not), not the other
way around.
Moose
We think alike in some ways. I proposed the bumble bee on another list
with a similiar discussion. It is amazing how pleased most people are
with their 4 and 5 megapixel cameras and if you do the math it is
impossible. I think it may have something to do with the fact that the
scan of a piece of film is a second generation image adding the flaws
of film to the flaws of scanning. A first generation slide or digicam
image is just better, or at least the eye thinks so.
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|