Tony Smith wrote:

>> Isn't this all about sound science, and that it won't change "anytime
>> soon"? :)
> 
> Science need evidence, so where is it?

That was exactly my question, for your supposedly scientific statement
about the probability of something being found tomorrow that you don't
consider today. It wasn't me who claimed something, it was you, and I asked
you to back this claim up /scientifically/. Which you didn't, and this post
continues not to back it up scientifically.

My point was that with this statement you left the scientific realm. So
far, all everybody (mainly you and Russell) has said in that respect is
that it seems, using ones gut, that you are right. (And I don't disagree on
this.) But this does not make it scientific, it still remains gut. And one
man's gut is as good as another woman's... neither creates scientific
theories.

I think it's good to keep the two apart, clearly apart.

You were not talking about the merits of the current thermodynamic
theories, you were talking about the probability that something may be
found that -- violating them or not -- you don't consider today. I asked
you for a scientific backup of that statement. You didn't bring it. It's
IMO not a scientific statement, and characteristic of an approach that is
not scientific. 

(FWIW, this reminds me of Newton... :)


> Well, this thread got tedious fast.

You shouldn't have started it, then, or continued...  Be careful what you
write in public, it could elicit a response :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist