I agree - I find the use of the phrase "just a theory" almost as annoying as the phrase "Scientific Fact".
There are no facts in science unless they are definitional. There are: a) hypotheses (educated guesses that can be tested) b) theories (refined hypotheses that have stood up to testing so far) c) "laws" (theories that have become generally accepted as accurate, but may later turn out to be imperfect - e.g., Newton's Laws as originally written prior to Quantum and Relativistic Physics). d) definitions (the value of pi or e are only "facts" because we've defined them to mean something.) e) assumptions (e.g., every physical-observable effect has a physical-observable cause)
This doesn't mean I don't respect Theories or "Laws" of science -- only that I understand them for what they are, as I'm sure you do as well. I'd just prefer that you not react to the misuse of the phrase "just a theory" by using a phrase that the common person will equally misinterpret, such as "Scientific Fact".
==>Andrew!
"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results'. Well, they do not... Yet science goes on in spite of it..." "What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself." "In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher." - Richard Feynman, _The_Character_of_Physical_Law_
"One of the weaker points of religions, is that they base all their facts in one initial fact: God exists, and so, from that all the other knowledge is generated."
Just to be clear, science is based on at least 2 equally unproven hypotheses (possibly others):
1) For every physical-observable effect there is a physical-observable cause. (physical-observable was the short-hand my Physics profs used for anything that can be measured or detected directly or indirectly)
2) Physical Law (that is the way the universe behaves) is consistent everywhere in the universe.
I am not claiming either of these is false. But from a purely philosophical point of view, the idea of "proving" things is a relative notion. In science, we can hypothesize, test, and improve our theories. But there is always room for the universe to prove us wrong.
Faith and Science start from different sets of assumptions. My own opinion is that: a) People of faith have nothing to fear from Science, since God surely understands the true nature of the universe, which we understand in progressive approximation through science. b) Scientists are foolish to become defensive about science in the face of Faith, as this often leads to pompously accepting as immutable that which is a progressive approximation of the true nature of the universe.
Of course, the Jonathan Zdziarski's responses re: F/OSS and SPAM were also quite thought provoking:)
==>Andrew Bauserman!
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard P. Feynman (Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report on the Challenger Space Shuttle Accident)
"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results'. Well, they do not... Yet science goes on in spite of it... "What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself. "In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher." - Richard Feynman, _The_Character_of_Physical_Law_
As far as I can determine, iDSL (over ISDN 2-channel 128 kbps) is the only "broadband" offered over fiber for the average consumer in areas near me (Verizon also).
While fiber has really high theoritical bandwidth, a T-1 level connection over fiber to my house is cost prohibitive vs. cable modem.
Which makes my answer to the question "why would you want DSL over fiber?" simply one word: "COST!"
I don't care if it is like "taking a boat to the desert" - if it gives me something in the megabit/sec range for a cable-modem price, bring it on!
SlashDot'ers know Beta is better than VHS - but the consumer just wants something that WORKS and is CHEAP! xDSL or Ethernet MAN on copper or fiber - who cares, just get me to the Internet with a decent link.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree - I find the use of the phrase "just a theory" almost as annoying as the phrase "Scientific Fact".
There are no facts in science unless they are definitional. There are:
a) hypotheses (educated guesses that can be tested)
b) theories (refined hypotheses that have stood up to testing so far)
c) "laws" (theories that have become generally accepted as accurate, but may later turn out to be imperfect - e.g., Newton's Laws as originally written prior to Quantum and Relativistic Physics).
d) definitions (the value of pi or e are only "facts" because we've defined them to mean something.)
e) assumptions (e.g., every physical-observable effect has a physical-observable cause)
This doesn't mean I don't respect Theories or "Laws" of science -- only that I understand them for what they are, as I'm sure you do as well. I'd just prefer that you not react to the misuse of the phrase "just a theory" by using a phrase that the common person will equally misinterpret, such as "Scientific Fact".
==>Andrew!
"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results'. Well, they do not... Yet science goes on in spite of it..."
"What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself."
"In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher."
- Richard Feynman, _The_Character_of_Physical_Law_
"One of the weaker points of religions, is that they base all their facts in one initial fact: God exists, and so, from that all the other knowledge is generated."
:)
Just to be clear, science is based on at least 2 equally unproven hypotheses (possibly others):
1) For every physical-observable effect there is a physical-observable cause. (physical-observable was the short-hand my Physics profs used for anything that can be measured or detected directly or indirectly)
2) Physical Law (that is the way the universe behaves) is consistent everywhere in the universe.
I am not claiming either of these is false. But from a purely philosophical point of view, the idea of "proving" things is a relative notion. In science, we can hypothesize, test, and improve our theories. But there is always room for the universe to prove us wrong.
Faith and Science start from different sets of assumptions. My own opinion is that:
a) People of faith have nothing to fear from Science, since God surely understands the true nature of the universe, which we understand in progressive approximation through science.
b) Scientists are foolish to become defensive about science in the face of Faith, as this often leads to pompously accepting as immutable that which is a progressive approximation of the true nature of the universe.
Of course, the Jonathan Zdziarski's responses re: F/OSS and SPAM were also quite thought provoking
==>Andrew Bauserman!
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
- Richard P. Feynman
(Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report on the Challenger Space Shuttle Accident)
"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results'. Well, they do not... Yet science goes on in spite of it...
"What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself.
"In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher."
- Richard Feynman, _The_Character_of_Physical_Law_
As far as I can determine, iDSL (over ISDN 2-channel 128 kbps) is the only "broadband" offered over fiber for the average consumer in areas near me (Verizon also).
While fiber has really high theoritical bandwidth, a T-1 level connection over fiber to my house is cost prohibitive vs. cable modem.
Which makes my answer to the question "why would you want DSL over fiber?" simply one word: "COST!"
I don't care if it is like "taking a boat to the desert" - if it gives me something in the megabit/sec range for a cable-modem price, bring it on!
SlashDot'ers know Beta is better than VHS - but the consumer just wants something that WORKS and is CHEAP! xDSL or Ethernet MAN on copper or fiber - who cares, just get me to the Internet with a decent link.