A note on 'significance'.
There is an important rift between the social sciences and the hard sciences,
wrt what is 'significant'.
In the social sciences 'significance' is quite relaxed.
Eg in drug-testing the bare 'evidence' of some effect to be above chance-level
is considered 'significant',
Boltzmann, Planck, Heisenberg.
What is the common theme?
Well.
Uncertainty.
Schroedinger's cat is maybe the culmination of this way of thinking.
The effect just does not instantiate, until YOU look at it.
To ultimately resolve the riddle is akin to blasphemy, it seems.
Is it 'god' versus the
2 matches
Mail list logo
