[ Post a Response | Tao Speaks ]
Posted by Jaime on 1/31/2008, 11:23 am, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science"
65.27.43.X
Hi Gar,
: It seems to me, if you don't have the
: correct tools for conducting a test, the
: data will be invalid.
: Quantum physics seems to peer into the
: minuscule with inadequate tools.
Well said! Another example is human psychology. How does one measure psychic (mental) elements? The proof of the measure would seem the predictive value for behavior. The valiant efforts towards empirical studies of the human psyche led to the discovery that if a test is properly devised, we can use statistics as our measuring tool.
Funny you brought up quantum physics, of which the above may hold true. I am re-reading Carl Jung's book Synchronicity, and he notes that with advanced physics (circa 1960, but still true today), we have to speak of facts in terms of probabilities, not absolutes, unless we are speaking of sizes and quantities that are astronomical.
Wayward,
-J
| 47 |
"The Tao is basically utterly open. Utter openeness has no substance. It ends in endlessness, begins in beginninglessnes".
-Li Daoqun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmaster: zentao00@yahoo.com Donations help to support, upgrade and expand the Tao Speaks! community..
