Skip to main content

Think About It

      On January 16 I listed alternate definitions of the word “theory”:
1.) A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
2.) A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of fact.

      At that time I suggested that Joe Sixpack distrusts scientists because certain interests have inundated him with the second definition, and downplayed the first. Actually, with a caveat, both definitions apply to the scientific mindset.
     Every scientific “theory,” e.g., theory of gravity, theory of relativity, etc., is understood to be conditionally covered under the first definition. The caveat is that thousands of scientists all over the world are diligently trying to disprove any such theory. In the event that an example can be found that is contrary to the theory, the theory must be either adjusted or replaced.
      That is why “science says” different things at different times; new information is continually coming to light. That is also the beauty and strength of science – its main activity is trying to disprove, and thereby improve, itself. Scientists ask questions that may never be answered – [some] religions give answers that may never be questioned.
      Science is a monolith, i.e., the whole structure is built upon a strong foundation. No one can deny that the theory of nuclear physics works. Even ignoring the nuclear bomb, it is proved daily by countless PET, CT and other scans, radiation treatments and other medical advances. Nuclear clocks control cell phone towers, electric power grids and global positioning systems.
     The mathematics involved is accurate enough to locate a coin on the road from New York to Los Angeles. Nuclear physics is a solid base, even though, as with any other scientific theory, it is subject to adjustment or replacement in the event that new discoveries come to light.
      One of the underpinnings of nuclear physics is that of radioactive decay. It is basic to the entire structure of physics, and has been observed and studied millions of times. It has also been verified by such activities as counting tree rings, historical records, examining ice cores, etc.
      But it is controversial insofar as it indicates that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old rather than the 6,000 years as reckoned by the Bible. As a result, some Christians consider that radioactive dating is unreliable beyond the age of written history.
      But consider this: If radioactive dating is not true, the entire structure of atomic physics is wrong. Radio, television, even electricity itself – all disappear. Chemistry, which brought us metallurgy, plastics, modern medicine – all gone. The entire subject of biology goes next. With biology goes psychology. Life as we know it no longer exists.
      I could go on, but you get the picture. In rejecting scientists, Joe Sixpack rejects the world. Little did he know.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There Are Only Seven Jokes - Introduction

      The statement “There are only seven jokes – all the rest are variations,” has been around for a long time, but no one ever seems to know what the original seven are. I think I have found the solution to the mystery.       The answer is to be found in an article published in the New York Times on May 2, 1909. Entitled “New Jokes? There Are No New Jokes, There Is Only One Joke,” it goes on to say that all jokes are a distortion, and lists seven categories of distortion. Supposedly every joke will fit into one of the categories. I believe that repetition changed the seven categories into the seven jokes.       Each of my next seven blogs will be devoted to exploring one of the categories. In addition, I shall attempt to give an example or two of jokes which I think fit the category.       You must realize that this article appeared over one hundred years ago, so most of the jokes a...
The Future of Work This is for folks who don't mind stretching their imagination a bit. Let me review some of the things that are happening in today's world. A recent news article stated that in spite of the decreasing jobless rate, the number of retail jobs has been dropping rapidly. An article in Business Insider calls it a retail apocalypse. According to the article, in the retail industry, "Since October about 89,000 workers in general merchandise stores have lost their jobs, which is more than the number of people employed in the entire US coal industry." ( http://www.businessinsider.com/retail-job-losses-are-hurting-the-economy-2017-4 ). This loss is due to the rapid expansion of online merchandising. But this is only one example of the point I want to make. According to an article in Scientific American, two professors at Oxford University published a study estimating the probability that "702 occupations would soon be computerized out of exist...

It's Not Just Semantics

     It seems there are two competing definitons for the term “small business”; to no one's surprise the Democrats are using one and the Republicans are using the other. For the convenience of anyone who doesn't know which party he prefers, here are the definitions: 1.) A small business is a business which is not very large, e.g., a corner grocery, a machine shop with a couple of employees, a mom and pop enterprise, etc. Most Democrats use the term in this context. 2.) A small business is a business which operates as a pass-through tax entity, e.g., most of the businesses in def. 1.) plus most mega-farms, some manufacturing firms, and practically all high-tech and professional firms. These organizations use the individual proprietorship, partnership, S-corporation, limited-liability company (LLC), etc. tax reporting format. Under this definition the business could have anywhere from one to thousands of employees. For example, with over 163,000 employees worldwide, t...