Philosophy of Science

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Philosophy of Science

Postby Sounder » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:28 am

Great stuff from Harvey and Burnt Hill

The comment section for this article is excellent basic education material.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/a ... ent-indeed
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Philosophy of Science

Postby DrEvil » Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:20 pm

We're almost four years on from the OP, and LENR is still just a pipe-dream and Rossi is still a fraud, and I think that last bit is why so many people are skeptical: there has been a whole raft of various people claiming to have solved it over the years, but they always just disappear off into obscurity after they fail to produce excess energy, refuse to let others vet their setup, get caught in outright fraud or any number of other stupid reasons. And they still can't explain exactly how it's supposed to work.

On the other hand there's slow but steady progress on "proper" fusion, which is well understood (and doesn't break physics) and just a really hard engineering problem. I know which one I'll put my money on.

Also, regardless what you think of ITER itself, it warms the heart to see practically the entire world get together to solve a hard problem over a time frame of decades. Started in 1985, expected full start of reactor in 1935. The follow up DEMO reactor is supposed to start delivering electricity in 2048. Even without slippage there will be scientists who spent their entire lives on this project and died before it was completed.

All that said, Peter Watts has an excellent analogy for our current understanding of science and potential ways to advance it:

Our current understanding is a mountaintop, and standing on it we can see far and know a lot of things. Waaaaay off in the distance we think there might be another peak, even higher than the one we're on, but to get there we first have to climb back down from our current peak and trek across the landscape and climb the other one, and we won't know if the other peak is higher and has a better view until we get there and look for ourselves.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Philosophy of Science

Postby Jerky » Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:36 am

Wonderful post Dr Evil.

I think for true progress to take place we need them both, the dreamers and the engineers. We need those whose visions seem ludicrous at first, and inspire equal parts scorn and inspiration. Then one of those aforementioned engineers get inspired, and decides to "work the problem".

We need DaVinci and the Wright brothers before we can achieve heavier than air flight.

Cheers
J
Last edited by Jerky on Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Philosophy of Science

Postby DrEvil » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:41 pm

Edit:

Started in 1985, expected full start of reactor in 1935


Should of course say "full start of reactor in 2035". They're not building a time machine and the Nazis aren't involved.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Philosophy of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:29 am

.

Indeed. A clear contrast to, say, time warps, which is serious business.


User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5217
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests