Assume v. Presume

Black Hole said:
Can't agree with that, unless you can find two real (not theoretical) adjacent energy states which are the energy of a galaxy apart.
Click to expand...
I will do that if you give me an example of something real that is infinite. Not mathematical, but real.
 
Okay, you win, but nonetheless a quantum leap is normally the transition between two energy states of an atom caused by the absorption of one photon or causing the emission of one photon. It ain't very big, it's the smallest state change possible, and certainly isn't what the public imagine when they speak of a quantum leap - when they usually mean a major innovation (not a minor one).

I don't really see why it should be necessary to justify reserving the term "infinite" for the truely infinite; as a concept it is entirely accessible to the general public whereas "quantum" does, at least, need some explanation.
 
Infinite is a mathematical abstraction, really. We could do without it, but maths would be so much harder. Think of calculus without the real line, limits, etc!

Most people would say the universe is infinite, but we know it very likely isn't.

I agree that originally, and loosely, a quantum was seen as the smallest unit of something that could exist, but not any more.
 
MikeSh said:
No we don't. We think it very likely isn't.
Click to expand...
The evidence for the big bang is pretty compelling! I know (think?) that think never really becomes know but anyone who did not act as though high probability meant knowledge would be regarded as psychotic wouldn't they? What about someone who denied all evidence of climate change? Or someone who believed supernatural beings existed? :rolling:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike0001 said:
What about someone who denied all evidence of climate change?
Click to expand...
Is it? Doesn't it tend to change on its own accord anyway. What proof do they have that mankind is actually causing any perceived climate change? It's a load of very expensive bunkum!
 
Mike0001 said:
Infinite is a mathematical abstraction, really. We could do without it, but maths would be so much harder. Think of calculus without the real line, limits, etc!
Click to expand...
Again, fair enough, but I would suggest that a military helicopter is (maybe) only twice as complex as a civil helicopter, and "twice" or even "one hundred times" does not, to me, correspond with the "unimaginably large" which might get away with being a reasonable popular definition of "infinite".
 
Does the addition of non-related functions to a device make the device itself more complex?
An airliner is more complex than a light aircraft because it has more moving parts, more instrumentation, etc, relating to the ability to fly and land safely.
A military helicopter may have a few extra goodies over a civil equivalent, such as navigation and communication equipment, but most of the additional complexity is in the weapon systems, which strictly speaking aren't part of the aircraft. The helicopter is a weapon platform.
 
But the 'kin great gun etc. IS part of the 'infinitely' more complex part of the overall machine. Thankfully, along with the 'kin great gun, they have a second person to operate that system to take a bit of the workload off the driver.
 
As long as the context makes it clear that "infinitely more" is being used hyperbolically then I have no problem with it.
 
I don't think the hyperbole was at all obvious - unless one knew the subject already, the programme was supposed to be an informative documentary. Bloopers like "infinitely more complex" or saying electrically charged powder coat particles are "magnetically attracted" to the work piece do not aid public understanding of technology!
 
I think that Jo public is rather more likely to understand the concept of 'magnetically attracted' as opposed to 'electrostatically attracted' , albeit an incorrect statement, unless they insert a 'like' or 'similar to' in the statement somewhere to make the statement a simile.
But I agree that a documentary factual programme should get its 'facts'. right.
 
But won't they then go on to believe that is actually the case? I see nothing wrong in using the (possibly) unfamiliar term "electrostatically attracted" - I would have thought very few people could fail to understand what that meant (it's in the word "attracted"), and the use of an unfamiliar qualifier brings it to their attention.

Writers trying to make information accessible by dumbing down do a disservice by taking it too far. There is no problem using the occasional unfamiliar word - that's how we all learn our native language in the first place.
 
Trev said:
Is it? Doesn't it tend to change on its own accord anyway. What proof do they have that mankind is actually causing any perceived climate change? It's a load of very expensive bunkum!
Click to expand...
203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg


There is something for you to start with. If you think it is anything else, please provide your evidence!
 
Dumbing down isn't a problem, it's just using simple language. Incorrect use of a technical word is not dumbing down, it's plain wrong.
Since most people seem to be issuing using their device while watching tv anyway, why not use the correct terminology? If the viewer doesn't understand then they can get an explanation from the internet in a matter of seconds.
 
Last edited:
Mike0001 said:
There is something for you to start with. If you think it is anything else, please provide your evidence!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that chart only shows a correlation between temperature and industrialisation. That doesn't on its own mean the two are connected, or if they are how.
 
MikeSh said:
Unfortunately that chart only shows a correlation between temperature and industrialisation. That doesn't on its own mean the two are connected, or if they are how.
Click to expand...
Then provide an alternative explanation, with evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top