From: Twink (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Dec 01 1997 - 17:16:11 MST
At 16:47:20 Sun, 30 Nov 1997 -0500 (EST) <EvMick@aol.com> wrote:
>>I read the book [_The Big Bang Never Happened_] myself...twice...and
>>still return to it on ocassion...
>
>>I find the overall concept intriguing...and for a nonmathematical person
>>such as myself it is a good explanation of some the finer points of
>>science...
A big part of the book was devoted to saying science should be
understandable by the layperson. This is okay, but can be taken
too far. Lerner's paean to Faraday is a welcome alternative to the
modern heavily technical and seemingly nonsensical science,
BUT it begs the question. If science is about finding the truth,
then the truth might NOT be as intuitive or as convenient as some
would like it to be. Does this make it any less true?
>
>>Lerner questions quantum mechanics if I recall correctly?....or at least
>>it's interpretation...as well as relativity?....
I don't recall all of it, though I seem to remember him coming down
against the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics.
(Correct me if I am wrong, but CI basically states that the traits of
quantum systems are determined by the observer.)
>
>>Lerner's explanation I COULD follow...and plasma filaments seem
>>plausible...as well as being experimentally verifiable I belelive?
I believe so, but wonder how to distinguish between some of his
plasma explanations and the more conventional ones. We could
(should?) adopt the method given by Paul Thagard in his
_Conceptual Revolutions_. It would be a learning experience.
(See my review at: http://www.mcs.net/~tshell/ust/revolution.htm)
Vivamus!
Daniel Ust
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:11 MST