🚀 go-pugleaf

  
> However my son ! Facts are never presecribed by theory, facts are the   
> results of observation.  
  
However my Son !  
you can't go for observation to hunt facts without knowing what  
you are going to hunt...:-)  
  
> For example, electrons were there much before quantum mechanics  
> (at least 30 years before) when they were observed in Braun tubes  
> and similar devices. By the way, your TV and your terminal  
  
Whose electrons ?!  
  
> (except if LCD) is a Braun tube, and a  
> ray of electrons produces the image. No quantum mechanics is  
> necessary to observe this fact ... :-)  
  
WoW !  
So it is a fact that my CRT emits electrons, is that right ?  
but fact according to what theory ? How can I prove that  
my CRT emits electrons, according to what theory ?  
  
> Your (wrong) statement that "if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
> electrons" is a nice example which shows the difference between a  
> fact (based on observation) and a speculation "prescribed" by   
> what you (but not scientists) call a "theory", namely your   
> conviction that theories precede facts ... :-)  
  
It is not my conviction that theories precede facts, but   
it is the rule of the game that we choose to look for a fact  
according to a theory in our scientific activities ... just  
because we want to know what we are talking about and what  
we expect to observe and be in agreement in our language  
when we use it during and after and before we set up   
an experimentation again in accordance with the theory  
that we agreed on to simplify our communications in  
our scientific activities..  
  
> I guess you many :-) signs mean to show that you have some theory  
> which comes before all your facts. Can you at least spell it out in more  
> detail, to enlighten us more ? :-)   
  
pip  (pass in peace)  
  
> 			Christoph Schiller