Suppose you had two opposing theories. The first is widely accepted but frequently disputed, and for which proof is currently technologically unachievable. Attempts to find proof of the first theory lead to numerous advances in science, none of which will ever prove the first theory, though they may provide any number of benefits - things like laser surgery, weather prediction, ultra-fast computers, cheap and unlimited energy, etc.
The second theory disproves the first and unquestionably can be easily proven with current science, but is generally unaccepted for any number of reasons. Perhaps the author did not graduate from the right school. This theory shows that even though the complete understanding of whatever it addresses can be had, there is nothing that it can be used for. The second theory also shows that further attempts to prove the first theory will always fail to do so, and without the expectation of some specific side benefits, are a waste of research time and money.
Which of these two theories would be more beneficial?
The second theory disproves the first and unquestionably can be easily proven with current science, but is generally unaccepted for any number of reasons. Perhaps the author did not graduate from the right school. This theory shows that even though the complete understanding of whatever it addresses can be had, there is nothing that it can be used for. The second theory also shows that further attempts to prove the first theory will always fail to do so, and without the expectation of some specific side benefits, are a waste of research time and money.
Which of these two theories would be more beneficial?
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=270541&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire