SPOILERS Science of the Discworld ~ where Magic ends? (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Jan Van Quirm
- Start date
I can't remember exactly where I read it, but Hex is 'magic advanced to the point that it is indistinguishable from technology', whereas most computational devices are 'technology advanced to the point that it is indistinguishable from magic'. As always, Terry is holding up a mirror to Roundworld. Perhaps the advancement of technology on the Disc is merely reflecting our own past, except that, of course, it keeps magic because otherwise it isn't a fantasy any more 
Just a passing thought.
Just a passing thought.
I did see it, and was thinking "who the heck is that? A newbie? No! It's cheeky avvie swapper Quark! 
"
Anyway, I've not been in yet because this subject needs brain power, so I've been mustering.
Well, on the subject that scientific discoveries would be made eventually anyway - we don't know that, do we? I mean, things seem obvious after someone else points them out, but for thousands of years no-one else copped on, so this might not be the case every time. It also makes a huge difference who actually makes the discovery, as some well-respected scientists could get practically anything in print, whereas unliked/unknown scientists, without the backing of higher-ups, struggle for decades (this is more the case last century and further back - Darwin for example had a lot of friends in high places which is why his work was not as controversial as many people seem to think).
Also, it has been said before that the mark of how important a scientist is how long he manages to hold up progress in his field. New discoveries have been shelved because the top guy won't have his work undone. So is science really objective then? And physics sounds mostly made up to me, since it seems to be about sitting around playing guessing games. I like science I can test!
Bad scientists - ones that don't put their theories to the test (where it's possible) but will keep insisting they're right, or do but then lie about it. Darwin was overly brilliant in this respect, as he did decades of research beofre finally publishing Origin. Possibly a bit too much, I think he was a bit of a chicken. But then he didn't start out as a scientist as such, he just happened to have a brilliant idea following a boat trip which then took a lot of thinking about and experiments with pidgeons and barnacles.
Where was I? Oh yes, bad scientists vs good scientists. Well, I'm often wrong, but luckily not in anything I've had published (well no-one's disproved me anyway). Now I've forgotten what I was talking about when I started this ramble, so I'll call it a day until someone complains and then I can defend it (defending your work is a huge part of being a scientist, you have to do it all the time).
"Anyway, I've not been in yet because this subject needs brain power, so I've been mustering.
Well, on the subject that scientific discoveries would be made eventually anyway - we don't know that, do we? I mean, things seem obvious after someone else points them out, but for thousands of years no-one else copped on, so this might not be the case every time. It also makes a huge difference who actually makes the discovery, as some well-respected scientists could get practically anything in print, whereas unliked/unknown scientists, without the backing of higher-ups, struggle for decades (this is more the case last century and further back - Darwin for example had a lot of friends in high places which is why his work was not as controversial as many people seem to think).
Also, it has been said before that the mark of how important a scientist is how long he manages to hold up progress in his field. New discoveries have been shelved because the top guy won't have his work undone. So is science really objective then? And physics sounds mostly made up to me, since it seems to be about sitting around playing guessing games. I like science I can test!
Bad scientists - ones that don't put their theories to the test (where it's possible) but will keep insisting they're right, or do but then lie about it. Darwin was overly brilliant in this respect, as he did decades of research beofre finally publishing Origin. Possibly a bit too much, I think he was a bit of a chicken. But then he didn't start out as a scientist as such, he just happened to have a brilliant idea following a boat trip which then took a lot of thinking about and experiments with pidgeons and barnacles.
Where was I? Oh yes, bad scientists vs good scientists. Well, I'm often wrong, but luckily not in anything I've had published (well no-one's disproved me anyway). Now I've forgotten what I was talking about when I started this ramble, so I'll call it a day until someone complains and then I can defend it (defending your work is a huge part of being a scientist, you have to do it all the time).
The old one was all grainy! Besides, I'm secretly never happy with anything the same for more than a few months. Sometimes I rearrange all my furniture... although since getting the very large, very heavy new bookshelf, none of that really happens anymore.
The thing about proper science is that you aren't allowed to withhold results because they're the ones you don't like, and you aren't allowed to publish false results. Code of the Ig... scientists. 8)
Besides, I'm secretly never happy with anything the same for more than a few months. Sometimes I rearrange all my furniture... although since getting the very large, very heavy new bookshelf, none of that really happens anymore.The thing about proper science is that you aren't allowed to withhold results because they're the ones you don't like, and you aren't allowed to publish false results. Code of the Ig... scientists. 8)
I don't know about "allowed", if you've done the work and you don't like the results you don't have to publish. But if the data is good quality then in most cases it's still a good idea to publish. Unless of course you're work is paid for by someone with their own agenda, in which case you might have a fight on your hands.
As an example, next time you read an original piece of work telling you that a certain food or type of alcohol is good for you, check where the funding came from....
As an example, next time you read an original piece of work telling you that a certain food or type of alcohol is good for you, check where the funding came from....
Not necessarily true. If the idea is revolutionary enough, and stands the scrutiny of peer review, it doesn't matter who publishes it, although good timing always helps. Look at Einstein--a completely unknown patent clerk who couldn't get a job in physics published a bunch of papers in 1905 that changed the world. And he changed the world because of the brilliance and game-changing nature of his discoveries. But it was inevitable that someone would made his discoveries. Think of all the amazing physicists who were born shortly before or after he was--Teller, Oppenheimer, Bohr, etc., any one of whom would likely have come up with some of his theories, particularly as the technology advanced to a point where the testing of these theories became practical. If the obscure scientists don't get their brilliant theories heard, it's more often because of politics. Many great Russian physicists were killed off by Stalin and their papers, published in very obscure journals, didn't see the light of day until many years later.
No scientist "holds up" progress in his field. For every discovery, there's always someone who wants to disprove it. The competititive nature of the field invites challenges to accepted notions. What may look like a lack of progress is in reality a testament to the dependability of the theory that makes it difficult to disprove or supplant with a different theory. Einstein's theories have held up amazingly well in the "real world" even if they tend to break down at the quantum level. And while he defended his theories at every opportunity, he invited others to challenge him (he and Bohr, who had opposite opinions of existence of quantum physics, debated endlessly over the subject. Bohr ultimately proved to be right, and even Einstein had to admit it, although he hated the whole idea). Science is totally objective; it's the scientists who may not be objective or may be hampered by their own beliefs (i.e., Einstein's refusal to believe in an expanding universe, or the Krazy Kreationists). The "importance" (as opposed to celebrity) of a scientist is measured by the number of fellow scientists who continue to do research to either support--or supplant--the discoveries he or she has made.
In fact, you're far more likely to see these kind of "important people' holding up progress in the liberal arts, where pompous humanities professors and philosophers refuse to consider other points of view that don't jibe with their own on matters of literature, history, music and art.
There aren't that many of these kinds of scientists out there other than the aforementioned Kreationists and kooks like Fred Hoyle. It's far more often that scientists have theories where technology doesn't exist to prove it. Einstein had to wait until 1919 to get proof of his general theory of relatively. Today, the whole string theory industry is built on a gigantic theoretical house of cards, with no technology available to prove or disprove it or likely to be developed for another 100 years or so.
J-I-B
No scientist "holds up" progress in his field. For every discovery, there's always someone who wants to disprove it. The competititive nature of the field invites challenges to accepted notions. What may look like a lack of progress is in reality a testament to the dependability of the theory that makes it difficult to disprove or supplant with a different theory. Einstein's theories have held up amazingly well in the "real world" even if they tend to break down at the quantum level. And while he defended his theories at every opportunity, he invited others to challenge him (he and Bohr, who had opposite opinions of existence of quantum physics, debated endlessly over the subject. Bohr ultimately proved to be right, and even Einstein had to admit it, although he hated the whole idea). Science is totally objective; it's the scientists who may not be objective or may be hampered by their own beliefs (i.e., Einstein's refusal to believe in an expanding universe, or the Krazy Kreationists). The "importance" (as opposed to celebrity) of a scientist is measured by the number of fellow scientists who continue to do research to either support--or supplant--the discoveries he or she has made.
In fact, you're far more likely to see these kind of "important people' holding up progress in the liberal arts, where pompous humanities professors and philosophers refuse to consider other points of view that don't jibe with their own on matters of literature, history, music and art.
There aren't that many of these kinds of scientists out there other than the aforementioned Kreationists and kooks like Fred Hoyle. It's far more often that scientists have theories where technology doesn't exist to prove it. Einstein had to wait until 1919 to get proof of his general theory of relatively. Today, the whole string theory industry is built on a gigantic theoretical house of cards, with no technology available to prove or disprove it or likely to be developed for another 100 years or so.
J-I-B
He wasn't completely unknown, he was doing a PhD. Which means he had the backing of his supervisor (who presumably knew him).
It's more often because of politics, and you're giving me one example?? Bad science! It's more often because of poilitics if you're in Russia. You might as well say that it's because they're eccentric and don't want to publish (there are more examples of this).
Oh my word you are soooo wrong. You're going to have to give me more time for this one, but it'll be a stunner.
But science is the gathering of knowledge, which is obviously done by man, who will always be biased. So science (which is not the same as fact) can never be totally objective.
Actually, Mike Rossner, editor of the Journal of Cell Biology, estimates that roughly 20% of accepted manuscripts to his journal contain at least one figure that has to be remade because of inappropriate image manipulation. This phenomenon is well known in scientific circles, and whilst frowned upon it isn't illegal. It's definitely bad science though.
Well now you're talking about physics again, which I already said I dont like because there's not enough testing of theories possible. So thank you for finally agreeing with me, dear.
It's more often because of politics, and you're giving me one example?? Bad science! It's more often because of poilitics if you're in Russia. You might as well say that it's because they're eccentric and don't want to publish (there are more examples of this).
Oh my word you are soooo wrong. You're going to have to give me more time for this one, but it'll be a stunner.
But science is the gathering of knowledge, which is obviously done by man, who will always be biased. So science (which is not the same as fact) can never be totally objective.
Actually, Mike Rossner, editor of the Journal of Cell Biology, estimates that roughly 20% of accepted manuscripts to his journal contain at least one figure that has to be remade because of inappropriate image manipulation. This phenomenon is well known in scientific circles, and whilst frowned upon it isn't illegal. It's definitely bad science though.
Well now you're talking about physics again, which I already said I dont like because there's not enough testing of theories possible. So thank you for finally agreeing with me, dear.
