🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <29SEP199213190360@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|>From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
|>Newsgroups: sci.physics
|>Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
|>
|>In article <1992Sep28.222259.18699@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
|>>In article <28SEP199211153430@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|>>>


< Some text deleted >

|>>I think you are being rather optimistic here.  For example, QED, or the
|>>standard model, is not known to be consistent.  Nor are they known to be
|>>inconsistent.
|>
|>Perhaps.  My tendency to be "optimistic" in this sense is well known 
|>to all.  I would prefer to say that QED is not *proven* to be consistent,
|>though it is known(*) to be so.  Certainly it is widely believed to be so.
|>
|>(*) According to the Oracle at Berkeley.
|>
|>-Scott

Now, that's an interesting way to put it. The usual thought about our way of
developing physics is that a theory is not yet been falsified. Not that it
really matters, but isn't your attitude more or less the same as physicist
around 1900 had. When they prefered to say that aether is not proven to exist
though it is known to :-).



      ---------------------------------------
       Internet: jarleb@medusa.uio.no         
       or        Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
      ---------------------------------------