[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Science Bashing?



Richard Hull wrote:

> So much of theory is based on a supply of matched impedance or relative
> stiffness and stability.  It is based pretty much on steady state (CW)
> conditions. (not always) and relies often on neat sine wave input.
> Violate one of these parameters and any good scientist will walk away and
> you'll have to actually do the measurments, real-time!


Most 'theories' that depend on such a rigidly controlled set of initial 
conditions are usually only 'rules of thumb' found in engineering handbooks 
and technical manuals.  These quickie equations are intended only to provide
a general insight to a problem set, not to explain the universe in general.
More accurate calculations of physical constants simply requires more work.

A _good_ scientist, when confronted with a discrepancy in his/her model of
a physical system will collect data, make a bold conjecture as to how the
model should be improved, and then devise an experiment to test this conjecture.

There are times when it's quicker to use the 'cut and try' approach, but like
any free lunch we should be constantly wary of the hidden costs.

-GL