19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusNo, you are just too stupid to see it. It took science to construct the technology.
Eladar, you are confusing science and technology. Technology is what builds planes and makes them fly. That is what you see with your own eyes, what you are mistakenly calling 'science in action.' Aerodynamics and metallurgy and physics and chemistry and so on are the sciences which make that technology possible. You evidently think that stuff is mere theo ...[text shortened]... no planes either. That is not merely my opinion, that's a fact. What's more, you can't touch it.
But hey, being stupid has its own reward. No need to be intellectually honest.
Originally posted by @eladarTake it to the Clans Forum, Spanky. It's your kind of folks there. Full of vitriol and invective. Oh, and tell roma45 I referred you. You're going to get on just great with him.
No, you are just too stupid to see it. It took science to construct the technology.
But hey, being stupid has its own reward. No need to be intellectually honest.
20 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @moonbuserr I think Neil Bohr's equations are more behind computers (think of the semiconductors) than Maxwell's equations but Maxwell's equations may somehow be involved somewhere behind computers as they usually are for most technologies.
You evidently think that stuff is mere theory, not fact. But consider this: your computer is technology, Maxwell's equations are the science behind it.
But you are clearly right about Eladar confusing technology with science and I have noticed him doing that many times before.
Technology isn't science.
There are undoubtedly more things going on than Maxwell's and Bohr's equations. The point is this: Eladar thinks he can separate facts from theories, put all facts in one box marked 'truth' and 'mere theories' in another box marked 'belief , opinion, assumption--take it or leave it.' This is bosh. It misrepresents what scientific theory is, and furthermore assumes much too simplistic a notion of what a fact is.
This is typical of Creationist-Evangelical positions with regard to evolution and the age of the Earth/universe. They accept that a fossil is fact but deny as 'mere theory' that it is evidence of evolution. They accept that the light from distant stars is red-shifted but deny that this is evidence of how old the light is (because that is again 'mere theory' ).
20 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusperhaps what he doesn't understand is that any fact is a proven theory.
Eladar thinks he can separate facts from theories, put all facts in one box marked 'truth' and 'mere theories' in another box marked 'belief , opinion, assumption--take it or leave it.'
This is true even if it wasn't explicitly presented as a theory at the point in time when it was proven to be fact.
If we see a star explode, then it is a fact that it can explode thus proves the theory that it can explode even if nobody considered the possibility that it might prior to it exploding thus the theory that it can didn't exist in any mind prior to it actually exploding but it exploding still necessarily proves a theory correct. Thus all facts are proven theories thus "theory" doesn't equate with "mere assumption" or opinion because it can be a proven theory.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarCan't you see you both are saying the same thing?
No, you are just too stupid to see it. It took science to construct the technology.
But hey, being stupid has its own reward. No need to be intellectually honest.
20 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyPartially true. The first computers were completely mechanical (think Antikythera mechanism) and the first electronic computers were based on tubes which was just controlled current and voltage control in vacuum. Transistors came later with the semiconductor theory behind them.
err I think Neil Bohr's equations are more behind computers (think of the semiconductors) than Maxwell's equations but Maxwell's equations may somehow be involved somewhere behind computers as they usually are for most technologies.
But you are clearly right about Eladar confusing technology with science and I have noticed him doing that many times before.
Technology isn't science.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyBased on his posts here and elsewhere, he would not doubt that we know a star has exploded, but he might doubt that we know what caused it to. He might doubt that we know that fusion is what is going on inside stars and that fusion sufficiently accounts for a star's exploding when its fuel is exhausted. All that is 'mere theory' not observable fact for him.
perhaps what he doesn't understand is that any fact is a proven theory.
This is true even if it wasn't explicitly presented as a theory at the point in time when it was proven to be fact.
If we see a star explode, then it is a fact that it can explode thus proves the theory that it can explode even if nobody considered the possibility that it might prior to ...[text shortened]... hus "theory" doesn't equate with "mere assumption" or opinion because it can be a proven theory.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseAh, don't forget Babbage's engine.
Partially true. The first computers were completely mechanical (think Antikythera mechanism) and the first electronic computers were based on tubes which was just controlled current and voltage control in vacuum. Transistors came later with the semiconductor theory behind them.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarWhen you see a plane fly, the science has already been done so now it is a matter of technology. Newton pretty much invented optical science and invented the reflecting telescope but it took 300 odd years to get one in orbit. Lot of science AND technology in between.
Not if he denies that watching a plane fly is seeing science put into practice.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseThe application is known, but just because it is known does not mean it is no longer science.
When you see a plane fly, the science has already been done so now it is a matter of technology. Newton pretty much invented optical science and invented the reflecting telescope but it took 300 odd years to get one in orbit. Lot of science AND technology in between.
Science, true science, is the accumulation of known natural laws.
The unproven stuff may be new work, some of which may pan out. But if it is not repeatable and observable it falls under belief.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarNo. Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
The unproven stuff may be new work, some of which may pan out. But if it is not repeatable and observable it falls under belief.
Unless you have your own personal definition.
Originally posted by @humyTechnology isn't science.
err I think Neil Bohr's equations are more behind computers (think of the semiconductors) than Maxwell's equations but Maxwell's equations may somehow be involved somewhere behind computers as they usually are for most technologies.
But you are clearly right about Eladar confusing technology with science and I have noticed him doing that many times before.
Technology isn't science.
technology
(the science of craft)
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science
If anyone wants to know what time it is, they could ask you up to two times a day and possibly receive the correct answer.