When Readers Comment (1/22/08)

kevin had this to say on my post about cosmologists speculating that floating brains could appear in empty space:

A good scientific principle: if you theory yields results that are patently ridiculous...

I disagree with the way you wrote this. "patently rediculous" according to what standard? The creationists would say that us evolving from monkeys is "patently rediculous". And I'd say that quantum mechanics is too -- it is an affront to common sense.

So drop that first clause:

A good scientific principle: if your theory yields results that are in clear contradiction with the observable universe, the problem is with your theory, not with the universe.

Point taken. Quantum physics is rarely ever intuitive -- at least not to me it isn't -- so a philosophical pragmatist approach is often appropriate. I retract the "patently ridiculous" part.

Tags

More like this

ESP is a new organization formed for the purpose of putting an end to the madness.
SCOTUSblog explains the excellent unanimous decision in KSR v. Teleflex.
Oh, The Onion. You are so wonderful and your take on the world of patents is so spot on that it hurts. What are patents for, anyways?
Queen's University engineering librarian Michael White runs The Patent Librarian's Notebook, a very important resource for anyone interested in finding and making sense of patent information.