Hi Marsha, 2009/4/23 MarshaV <[email protected]>
> > Kieffer, > > When billions of dollars are spent to build a machine and setup an > experiment to prove the existence of, let's say, the Higgs boson, it should > be acknowledged that there are a whole lot of assumptions built into the > method of testing. True, but a lot of those assumptions have already been useful (for good or bad) already. The search for the Higgs boson is supported by numerous international organisations and governments - so while i dont have the scientific knowledge to imagine what the implications that affirmation of the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson would be, nevertheless, i still think that that knowledge should be pursued - dont you? > It is often the case that the answer reached is, more or less, guaranteed > by the questions being asked and the method used. This brings to mind also the profilactic effect in medicine; the human mind is more powerful than we imagine and sometimes works in mysterious ways. > I heard of a test at Fermilab where out of approximately15 million testing > events,1/2 dozen seemed to be proof of "top quark". ... are you suggesting that they reject the data that dont support what they are looking for? I dont believe they reject that data - at some point a true scientist will be forced by his conscience to reconcile all the data. > How much money, prestige and current theories involved were dependent on > this test and results? I'm sorry, but this seems more like celebrity poker > than an objective, neutral science experiment. So you think the search for the Higgs boson should be abandoned? > With the public, science still has an unquestioned, privileged position > that maybe it just doesn't deserve. I think there is a high percentage of people who are sceptical of science - most of the those with into religous/spiritual scene for example. > While you seem to already have clear opinions about science, my mind is far > from made up. I hope i recognise when something makes sense to me - the big bang for example - i cant accept that there was nothing before that as Hawking says - my philosophy demands there must be a continuum - i dont accept an untimate source. > I am especially concerned when science, as a powerful system and > institution, participates in genetically modifying food, and for the > corporations that are providing funding. Is this what genetic biologists > should be doing? I dont know enough to form a definite opinion on this - but i do think that population growth is a big problem; to not attempt to develop food may be one solution to keep the population down but a very painful one for those without food. From the mystics point-of-view it may not matter much, but from > philosophy's point-of-view and a grandmother's point-of-view, the questions > should be asked and answers considered. The universe ends when i die - a life of worry is a wasted life. -KO Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
