Russell Garber wrote:
> What is it with science and the un-scientific definitions they use? When we
> think of science, we think of facts, but too often in science the definitions
> used are not based on facts. I realize that a lot of areas in science are
> theoretical, but unfortunately the definitions do not always reflect this. In
> many cases we are given multiple definitions for the same term, that have
> different meanings, and when the definition is the best theory (and therefore
> not a true definition), a definition is often given without the word theory
> being used. I see this as a huge problem. Take the thread on the geomagnetic
> poles for instance. It reminded me of the movie "The Edge". If you saw the
> movie, then you know that the people in the movie where trying to find out
> which way was South. One of the characters in the movie made a compass using a
> paper clip and silk, and determined South was the direction that the clip
> pointed when sitting on a leaf that was floating in a still pool of water.
> When asked how he could be sure, the character remarked that the needle had no
> choice, it had to point South. Again, if you saw the movie, this character
> was supposed to be very intelligent and thus the statement appeared to be made
> as a fact and not a mistake. Now, while watching this, I am thinking, wait a
> minute, a compass points North (again I am speaking of the directions North and
> South), how could Hollywood make such a mistake as this in a movie. Anyway,
> without going into that any further, regardless of which is true, you can see
> where the confusion comes in. People do not want to change definitions that
> people are used to in fear of further confusion, but I personally would rather
> have a little confusion now, in an attempt to get CORRECT definitions, as it
> will make a difference somewhere down the road.
But if you are conscious of it it does not matter.
> Another example is the
> definition of a Photon. I have read four different definitions that had
> completely different meanings thus making all of the definitions useless (I
> would have rather seen "unknown" as the definition, then four different
> definitions). It makes one wonder how they can come up with such complex
> theories, when they cannot even agree on a definition for key players in their
> theories. Not to mention the fact that they often leave out any anomalies they
> come across because they cannot explain them even though they consistently show
> up (Maxwell's equations for example). Such reckless use of definitions
> (including refusal to update them based on new evidence), only further hinders
> our understanding of complex ideas used in such theories and the ideas used by
> inventors. One possible reason why a lot of the inventions cannot be
> duplicated, may be due to problems with vague, mis-understood, or incorrect
> definitions used to describe some process in the invention (even if we
> understand the definition, the inventor may not have). We could probably list
> endless examples, but you get the idea. This problem has bothered me for a
> long time, and recent posts have further brought this problem out into the
> open. I am done complaining about it as there is probably not much we can do.
> The only thing I would suggest is that any inventors or theorists out there,
> please explain exactly what you mean (using clear and easily understood
> examples if possible) , even if you think that it is already clear what you
> mean, in an attempt to avoid such confusion. If there is any confusion, then
> please state what definition you are using for the unclear term.
>
> -Russ
> "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------