Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
You can't have it both ways, producing charts and demanding tolerance values, then asserting that units are irrelevant.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
And as I've pointed out, you're not going to get any "general" answer, just as there are no valid answers to "general" questions such as "When is a metal strong enough?" or "How thick does a cable need to be?"
Also, the chart is right out the window to begin with because there is no way to draw your Truth line. If we could do that, we wouldn't need science.
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
Now, wait a minute, let's humor the guy.
Yes, Tai, we stop after n = 1.
What happens? We make a new medicine after n = 1, and distribute it to the population. Lot's of people get made well, others sicker, others die. We say "opps, what went wrong????". Some bright person finally thinks to question the n =1 protocol for approving drugs, and bumps it up to n = 2.
What happens? Well, the released drugs under the new protocol have about the same effect at the n = 1 drugs, but some drugs were stopped from going to market, so it's a net improvement.
So some wiseguy at one drug company sets n = 10^10, while other companies set n = 1000, and do statistical analysis. Other's leave n=2.
What happens. n=2 company gets sued out of existance. n = 10^10 goes bankrupt before fielding a single drug. n=1000+analysis starts fielding reliable medicine.
Throw in some more iterations. Some drugs are going to require more testing, some less. In some cases we can predict that, in some we can't. Over time an enormous body of knowledge is going to build up, such that a PhD is required just to master it all. Naturally, there will always be mistakes. Some tests will be too conservative, and cost the company money, or harm people by not gettting drugs released in times. Other times drugs will be released too soon. Yet all we need to do is look at the current system to realize the methods in place are pretty decent. We still work to improve them.
Cause thats how reality works. You try to go counter to it, and it bites you.
Surely this clarifies how science works, and how there is no defined stopping point.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
I will test it if you will provide the funding.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
It has to be, you are never specific about anything.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
When there have been enough repeated experiments verifying it. As for things like gravity, well there are experiments done on that every day, they are either basic ones for students to show the principles, or more advanced ones like maping variation in the earths gravitational feild and such.
If there are not better instruments, and it has been repeated properly and replicated, then there is no practical need to simply redo old experiments.
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
Exactly. No one is stopping after n=1.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Well, I'll have to admit that T'ai is the most well spoken one-issue candidate on the boards. He's a little like Ross Perot - easy enough to listen to but the NAFTA stuff gets tiresome very fast.
"Loss Leader", please try and focus on the issue, not the person. Mmm kay?
Now, do you agree or disagree that we do more than just looking at n=1? For what n do you stop?
We never stop. Every time the results of scientific inquiry are used, they're implicitly being tested.
For example, I don't do much formal research into computer engineering -- but every time I post on the Internet, I implicitly rely on the components working as designed. For example, the components have been designed with the assumption that the transistors will not suddenly transmogrify themselves into hot buttered popcorn.
So far, I've been lucky. That hasn't happened.
Multiply my experience by the appropriate billions and you see that we're continually running a test of the transistor to popcorn hypothesis.
And pencil dropping? Happens by the thousands, every day, all over the world.
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,546
We could do more or less than looking at n=1, depending on the value of n.
Why stop? Why start?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
First of all, the appears to be no clear issue to focus on.
Second, there is a problem with how you're conducting yourself, which needs to be corrected before any meaningful discussion can be had.
Third, you're asking for a specific "n" in your answer, yet claiming that you need to provide no specifics in your OP.
Fourth, you're ignoring other posts which address this issue.
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Simple. When
tolerance = banana
I know some might argue that tolerance = iguanadon, but they would be wrong.
Makes as much sense as his graph.
T'ai Chi - Science is never satisfied, questioning established theories, always looking for mistakes. It relies on the critique of the work of others. There are no authorities in science - Albert Einstien's work will continue to be questioned and revised if needed.
