[rhinoceros 1] However, when this subject comes up, we always talk about physics. In other sciences, there are many more contradictory and mutually exclusive theories promoted from academic institutions funded by various interest groups. We cannot interpret the data of every specific scientific field, so we usually have no choice but to accept the favorite of the media (or do some speculation and just take the oposite option).
[Hermit 2] I like a few examples from Electrical Engineering where current flow is a mass of conflicting models. We use "Conventional Current" [hopelessly wrong, yet makes good predictions], "Electron Flow" [Not as wrong, makes better predictions] and a "Charge transfer" model [Good model (?) but not nearly as useful for rule of thumb predictions). Most fields have little "conflicts" like this buried somewhere. I would not suggest "the media" as a source for anything, indeed, experience has taught me that their need for simplicity and punchy sound bites means that the media are more likely to be in error than correct. So perhaps they could be used as a "dreadful warning" indicator. Look at what the media is saying, and then do the opposite <grin>.
[rhinoceros 2]
Electrical Engineering was not what I had in mind, and that is why my reference to the media seemed absurd. I was thinking about things like history studies (theories beneficial for some country's tourism or for some political purposes) or public health studies (pollution, ozone, smoking and industry).
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25551>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:14 MDT