Re: Un-scientific definitions

John Berry ( antigrav@ihug.co.nz )
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:32:12 +1300

I "Hoped" that was what you meant, Yes I fully agree...

Russell Garber wrote:

> Hi John et el!
>
> Yes, I understand the operation of a compass. The movie did not mention
> how it was determined which end of the paper clip was which pole. It
> probably was not the best example, but it was not the point of the post
> either. It was just an example of an area where there is confusion, as you
> and "The Troll" pointed out in the previous thread. The main point of the
> thread was that in many cases the definition for a term is not logical and
> thus confusing, and often there may be multiple conflicting definitions for
> the same term. In a time where some students are being taught from
> out-dated text books, and some of their teachers cannot even pass the
> teaching exams, and scientists cannot agree on the definitions for terms
> used in some of their most widely accepted theories, how can we expect to
> ever improve on our understanding of the universe. Again, it is the blind
> leading the blind, and the future looks less bright indeed.

agreed, but would you mind being specific....

>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------