I wonder if what you say accounts for all cases. To me there are two main types of scientists, which of course may overlap. There are the theoreticians, and the experimentalists. I’ll stick to historical figures only because their examples are most well-known.
Let’s take Copernicus as an example of the first. He did not discover anything, but was certain that his explanation of the revolution of the heavenly orbs was correct. So his surprise, if he had any, would be that people could possibly hold on to the ad hoc theories of the Ptolemians. My point is that theoreticians are usually not surprised by results, because they predict them.
Let’s take Galileo as an example of the second, and perhaps as a mix of the two types. He would have been surprised only if the results of his incline plane experiment did not disprove Aristotelian physics, because he begins with the hypothesis that Aristotle is wrong (which we know from his writings). So his revolutionary results did not surprise him.
And often surprise is bad. Sometimes scientists are surprised because they don’t get the results that confirm their own hypothesis. We don’t read about that science in journals or newspapers. Sometime scientists are surprised, but it’s because their discovery turns out to be flawed (cold fusion?). And some scientists may be surprised that some other fundamental theory is proven correct and theirs wrong (cf. how Eddington’s observations destroyed Newtonian space, which was only a surprise to hardcore Newtonians).
There is definitely wonder and curiosity in behind the work of all scientists, and I imagine that this was generally sparked by some surprise (wow! If I crumple the paper it hits the ground at the same time as a rock!). And yes, empirical scientists may discover something they don’t expect, but that surprise soon disappears into theory (a theory, or at least hypothesis, that was probably already there but unknown to that scientist).
So I hold that surprise, as it applies to published or announced results, is usually PR, or bad journalism.
I've seen every Star Wars film (except Solo), and most of them many times. Yet, for the life of me, I can only describe the plot of the original trilogy.
Originally the license plate was there to show your vehicle was registered, enabling you to the full right of way along with other vehicles. Only later did it become a tool of the police.
The only bike accident I've ever been in was caused by a van driven by an uninsured person, who hit me from behind while I was riding straight, breaking no laws. Moreover, I was in the lane (with a helmet and safety vest) because a large food truck was sticking out beyond the normal space reserved for parked cars.
You know what the cop asked me? He asked me why I was driving on that street.
So, yep, police are wont to find cyclists at fault. After all, they find fault in cyclists being on the road.
Then there is the whole utility thing. You aren't going to carrying a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 back on bicycle. Yeah it can be done but who the hell wants to.
Um, I've never owned a car and I have done just that very thing for the last 25 years.
And yet, if you ask the police for their stats, on average it is most likely a cyclist is at fault when police arrive at the scene of an MVC involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle.
I wonder why that is?
Oh, do I ever love a good anecdote in an argument. It proves so much.
Basically buy the cheapest phone that does the job and you are done, replace it when you accidentally drop it in the john or it falls out of your pocket.
First of all, Aristotle's prioritization of metaphysics comes directly from Plato (who in turn gets it from Parmenides and Pythagoras, but there is little doubt that we know more about Plato's ideas than we do about theirs).
Second, Plato recognizes all sorts of things that we call knowledge; he though defines knowledge more strictly than we do. So, for instance, a mechanic "knows" how an engine works, but because he cannot scientifically explain the physics behind it, nor the geometry and other math behind that, he strictly speaking does not know how an engine works, but rather has informed opinion. So your disagreement with Plato is one of terminology alone.
Third, Plato does not have the foundational problem that Aristotle has. Correspondence is a notoriously tricky criterion of truth. Say what you will about innate knowledge - I imagine you've had experiences in which you simply cannot get someone to understand something you do. There is something in us that 'gets' the truth (or the math, or what have you). I think Plato was more open to that.
Fourth, that said, my own interest lies more with Aristotle than with Plato.
I go to secondary inspection at least once a year when entering the States (sometimes more than once, depending on the competence of the primary agent). It's never a problem for me, as my case is clear cut and things just need to be checked out. But I've heard some of the saddest things there (once I was next to a guy clearly sent to the USA to be a prostitute) and some of the funniest (a guy trying to prove that he was in fact a licensed body-guard).
I love this argument because it leads directly to Plato's observation that the science of the true (metaphysics) is the highest science, and the one that the fewest people are concerned with.
This was over 20 years ago... but for all I know this still occurs. And they were not customs charges. I sometimes had to pay those, but those I understood.
In Belgium I used to get packages all the time that ended up costing me money. For instance, my parents would mail me something, but somehow once it reached Belgium it got in the hands of a courier, and then the courier would charge another amount (equivalent to around $30) to deliver it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if what you say accounts for all cases. To me there are two main types of scientists, which of course may overlap. There are the theoreticians, and the experimentalists. I’ll stick to historical figures only because their examples are most well-known.
Let’s take Copernicus as an example of the first. He did not discover anything, but was certain that his explanation of the revolution of the heavenly orbs was correct. So his surprise, if he had any, would be that people could possibly hold on to the ad hoc theories of the Ptolemians. My point is that theoreticians are usually not surprised by results, because they predict them.
Let’s take Galileo as an example of the second, and perhaps as a mix of the two types. He would have been surprised only if the results of his incline plane experiment did not disprove Aristotelian physics, because he begins with the hypothesis that Aristotle is wrong (which we know from his writings). So his revolutionary results did not surprise him.
And often surprise is bad. Sometimes scientists are surprised because they don’t get the results that confirm their own hypothesis. We don’t read about that science in journals or newspapers. Sometime scientists are surprised, but it’s because their discovery turns out to be flawed (cold fusion?). And some scientists may be surprised that some other fundamental theory is proven correct and theirs wrong (cf. how Eddington’s observations destroyed Newtonian space, which was only a surprise to hardcore Newtonians).
There is definitely wonder and curiosity in behind the work of all scientists, and I imagine that this was generally sparked by some surprise (wow! If I crumple the paper it hits the ground at the same time as a rock!). And yes, empirical scientists may discover something they don’t expect, but that surprise soon disappears into theory (a theory, or at least hypothesis, that was probably already there but unknown to that scientist).
So I hold that surprise, as it applies to published or announced results, is usually PR, or bad journalism.
As long as its universities are obsessed with innovation and disruption, the authoritarianism of the States is just going to get worse.
I've seen every Star Wars film (except Solo), and most of them many times. Yet, for the life of me, I can only describe the plot of the original trilogy.
What does this even mean, in this context?
I mean, apart from external realities causing science to lose it characteristic dispassion?
I too came here to say that this is just warmed-over Lawrence Krauss.
It's amazing how (contemporary) physics re-traces the history of rational theology.
they were originally boats, which tack like that ...
Originally the license plate was there to show your vehicle was registered, enabling you to the full right of way along with other vehicles. Only later did it become a tool of the police.
The point of the article is that bikes can save time. And, I would add, a lot of money ...
Well, anecdote this.
The only bike accident I've ever been in was caused by a van driven by an uninsured person, who hit me from behind while I was riding straight, breaking no laws. Moreover, I was in the lane (with a helmet and safety vest) because a large food truck was sticking out beyond the normal space reserved for parked cars.
You know what the cop asked me? He asked me why I was driving on that street.
So, yep, police are wont to find cyclists at fault. After all, they find fault in cyclists being on the road.
Then there is the whole utility thing. You aren't going to carrying a weeks groceries for a family of 3 or 4 back on bicycle. Yeah it can be done but who the hell wants to.
Um, I've never owned a car and I have done just that very thing for the last 25 years.
And yet, if you ask the police for their stats, on average it is most likely a cyclist is at fault when police arrive at the scene of an MVC involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle.
I wonder why that is?
Oh, do I ever love a good anecdote in an argument. It proves so much.
for one, they make me less free from cameras observing public places.
Basically buy the cheapest phone that does the job and you are done, replace it when you accidentally drop it in the john or it falls out of your pocket.
That is precisely how and when I buy a new phone.
no, you got coast-to-coast am in my slashdot!
First of all, Aristotle's prioritization of metaphysics comes directly from Plato (who in turn gets it from Parmenides and Pythagoras, but there is little doubt that we know more about Plato's ideas than we do about theirs).
Second, Plato recognizes all sorts of things that we call knowledge; he though defines knowledge more strictly than we do. So, for instance, a mechanic "knows" how an engine works, but because he cannot scientifically explain the physics behind it, nor the geometry and other math behind that, he strictly speaking does not know how an engine works, but rather has informed opinion. So your disagreement with Plato is one of terminology alone.
Third, Plato does not have the foundational problem that Aristotle has. Correspondence is a notoriously tricky criterion of truth. Say what you will about innate knowledge - I imagine you've had experiences in which you simply cannot get someone to understand something you do. There is something in us that 'gets' the truth (or the math, or what have you). I think Plato was more open to that.
Fourth, that said, my own interest lies more with Aristotle than with Plato.
I go to secondary inspection at least once a year when entering the States (sometimes more than once, depending on the competence of the primary agent). It's never a problem for me, as my case is clear cut and things just need to be checked out. But I've heard some of the saddest things there (once I was next to a guy clearly sent to the USA to be a prostitute) and some of the funniest (a guy trying to prove that he was in fact a licensed body-guard).
Apparently these problems can be overcome as the dwarsliggers are reportedly "wildly popular" in the Netherlands.
I must say though I have never seen one in Belgium, where I spend half of the year. Perhaps I am not observant enough.
Do you think Holden really cared what Leon thought about his mother?
Don't get so distracted by the content of conversations as if all we do is exchange outputs and inputs. Subtext is also rather important.
But I starting to think that you are a Turing Machine anyway.
I love this argument because it leads directly to Plato's observation that the science of the true (metaphysics) is the highest science, and the one that the fewest people are concerned with.
auto-playing videos is really annoying (but is not an FF exclusivity...)
This is trivial to fix in about:config, which I assume you know ...
I disagree. The speaker could be probing you to see your mood, etc. The speaker can learn a lot from you.
Just because it is not important to you does not mean it is not important per se.
This was over 20 years ago ... but for all I know this still occurs. And they were not customs charges. I sometimes had to pay those, but those I understood.
In Belgium I used to get packages all the time that ended up costing me money. For instance, my parents would mail me something, but somehow once it reached Belgium it got in the hands of a courier, and then the courier would charge another amount (equivalent to around $30) to deliver it.