Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 16 of 249 (491912)
12-24-2008 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by erikp
12-24-2008 5:03 AM


erikp writes:
Theories go from unprovenly false to provenly false. Scientific progress is the result of proving that what we know is wrong.
As soon as someone finally finds an observation that contradicts the theory, the theory will finally be proven to be false, because proof of falsehood only requires one observation that contradicts the theory.
This may hold true only about certain theories - multiverse, 10 dimensions, baby universes, quantum darwinism, eternal universe, infinite universe, etc. The structure of the world is elusive and crazy, but not so crazy as to be completely unknowable. Have you been on an airplane? How does that jive with your theory that nothing is fixed and certain? I imagine you would never board something that stays airborne on incorrect physical principles and theories.
The mere fact that the universe appears to have existed for 13.7 billion years is a good indication that its structure is solid and fixed and quite possibly knowable. That doesn't mean that all of our theories are correct, but that there most certainly is a path for us to follow. It is my belief that this path will yield us the answers we are looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 5:03 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 5:34 AM Agobot has replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 17 of 249 (491913)
12-24-2008 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Agobot
12-24-2008 5:26 AM


>>> Have you been on an airplane? How does that jive with your theory that nothing is fixed and certain?
The safety of an airplane is vested in the fact that it is very hard to prove that the airplane is actually unsafe. The safety of an airplane, however, has never been and will never be proven.
>>> I imagine you would never board something that stays airborne on incorrect physical principles and theories.
These physical principles and theories are indeed incorrect, but nobody has been able to prove it. That is why we use them. These incorrect theories are still very useful.
>>> That doesn't mean that all of our theories are correct, but that there most certainly is a path for us to follow.
All these theories are incorrect. Science as a whole must necessarily be incorrect. The value of science, however, derives from the fact that it is very hard to prove that it is incorrect; and that nobody has been able to do it up till now, for the existing body of science.
>>> It is my belief that this path will yield us the answers we are looking for.
I didn't say that science is not useful. On the contrary. It is very useful. But that doesn't make it correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 12-24-2008 5:26 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Agobot, posted 12-24-2008 9:30 AM erikp has not replied
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2008 1:24 AM erikp has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 18 of 249 (491919)
12-24-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by erikp
12-24-2008 5:34 AM


erikp writes:
The safety of an airplane is vested in the fact that it is very hard to prove that the airplane is actually unsafe. The safety of an airplane, however, has never been and will never be proven.
No. It's still the safest mode of mass travel, read the statistics.
erikp writes:
All these theories are incorrect. Science as a whole must necessarily be incorrect. The value of science, however, derives from the fact that it is very hard to prove that it is incorrect; and that nobody has been able to do it up till now, for the existing body of science.
If you want to say something - say it outright, even if it's the most radical thing in the world. Is your point that there is no fundamental reality but an endless chain of transforamtions - like the idea that matter was fundamental, then energy, later information, ...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 5:34 AM erikp has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 19 of 249 (491978)
12-25-2008 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by erikp
12-24-2008 5:03 AM


erikp and I respond to each other:
quote:
Theories go from unprovenly false to provenly false.
That isn't what you said. What you said was:
It will remain unproven and false, until someone finally manages to prove that it is false.
But there is no evidence for it being false, therefore we cannot claim that it is. Again, the theory might be absolutely perfect. However, we will never be able to know that for that would require us being able to make every possible observation, which cannot be done.
This does not make the theory false. Just because you cannot show it to be true does not mean that it is false. Since you mentioned the Incompleteness Theorems, surely you know about the Continuum Hypothesis and how it relates.
Without getting into what the Continuum Hypothesis is, the point is that Godel showed that if we assume it to be true, then we do not reach any contradiction with the axioms of set theory. But just because we don't have a contradiction doesn't mean it is actually true. Cohen showed that if we assume it to be false, we also do not reach any contradiction with the axioms of set theory.
Just because you can't prove it true doesn't mean it is false.
quote:
Scientific progress is the result of proving that what we know is wrong.
In part. Another part of scientific progress is the result of finding new applications for known processes. To hook into a recent Nova special, the Nobel Prize was given out for the work in reaching the coldest temperatures ever recorded. We're only a few picodegrees away from absolute zero...something that we will never be able to reach. We made magnificent progress not by proving something wrong but by extending what we already knew.
Oh, showing things to be wrong is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. When we find that what we thought we knew isn't true, it opens up whole new avenues of exploration. But that isn't the end-all, be-all of science.
quote:
As soon as someone finally finds an observation that contradicts the theory, the theory will finally be proven to be false, because proof of falsehood only requires one observation that contradicts the theory.
Indeed. Do you have any evidence that such an observation has been found? Your claim rests upon the phrase, "as soon as." Well, we haven't hit that. What happens if we never do? Again, our theory might be exactly right, but we'll never know for sure because we'll never be able to make every possible observation. But just because we can't make every observation doesn't mean we have failed in the ones we have made.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 5:03 AM erikp has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 249 (491979)
12-25-2008 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by erikp
12-24-2008 5:10 AM


erikp responds to me:
quote:
The requirement that something can be represented as a number, is nothing more than requiring that you can create a digital representation of it.
Incorrect. Number is much more complicated than that. If you think that gravitational theory is equivalent to set theory, then surely you can tell us how to derive addition from it. You'll need to develop the relationships of equality, commutativity, etc. and all the other aspects of arithmetic that will result in it satisfying the requirements of the first Incompleteness Theorem.
quote:
What then applies to the numbers, applies to the original thing too.
But where is your proof that gravity is equivalent to a number?
Hint: Just because we know that there are statements that cannot be proven in our set theory doesn't mean that any collection of statements must include such an unprovable statement. The Continuum Hypothesis is unprovable, but that there is no largest prime is trival to prove.
What that means: Just because physics is applied math doesn't mean that the findings of physics are subject to the incompleteness of math.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 5:10 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by erikp, posted 12-25-2008 7:38 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 21 of 249 (491980)
12-25-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by erikp
12-24-2008 5:34 AM


erikp, I know you're new, so here's some helpful guidelines for posting:
There are "dBCodes" that can be used to help quote things. This will prevent you from having to manually insert brackets. They can be nested in case you need to quote both sides of a conversation.
To do a simple quotation, use the [quote] and [/quote] tags. If you put in:
[quote]Quoted text.[/quote]
It will show up as:
quote:
Quoted text.
Again, you can nest the quotes:
[quote][quote]Starting quote.[/quote]
Response quote.[/quote]
To get:
quote:
quote:
Starting quote.
Response quote.
For a little fancier quotation that allows you to put in an attribute, use the [qs] and [/qs] tags:
[qs]Quoted text.[/qs]
Becomes:
Quoted text.
To nest:
[qs][qs]Starting quote.[/qs]
Response quote.[/qs]
Becomes:
Starting quote.
Response quote.
To add the attribution, use [qs=Name of person] (which can also be nested):
[qs=Steven Hawking][qs=Albert Einstein]God does not play dice with the universe.[/qs]
Not only does god play dice with the universe, he throws them where we can't see them[/qs]
Will become:
Steven Hawking writes:
Albert Einstein writes:
God does not play dice with the universe.
Not only does god play dice with the universe, he throws them where we can't see them
Note, the attribution option is only available for [qs], not [quote]

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 5:34 AM erikp has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 22 of 249 (491986)
12-25-2008 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
12-25-2008 1:08 AM


quote:
If you think that gravitational theory is equivalent to set theory, then surely you can tell us how to derive addition from it.
Gravitational theory can be represented as a number. If it has an axiomatic proof (which I doubt ...), this proof can be represented as a number too. This is obvious. Anything that can be represented in text, can be represented as a number, since every letter in the text is mapped to a number (ascii, unicode, ...)
Gdel does not derive addition from it. He analyses the tuples (T,PROOF(T)), which simply associates each numerically represented theorem T with its proof PROOF(T). Then he demonstrates that there are theorems T that are associated with themselves (fixed points), while claiming that they are unprovable.
quote:
But where is your proof that gravity is equivalent to a number?
The fact the theorem can be written in text, is a more than sufficient proof that the theorem can be represented as a number. A=65, B=66, ... Just use the standard ascii character code, and you can see the entire theory appear as a number. I don't think that the gravity theorem has axiomatic proof associated to it (it is very much itself an axiom).
I already admitted that Gdel's theorem is heavily dependent on axiomatic proof, while the true proof for gravity is not axiomatic but the fact that no observation in the collection of possible observations contradicts it.
The problem consists in demonstrating that this contradicting observation -- in a set of given conditions of minimal complexity -- must exist, without having to pinpoint it (without the need to disprove the theory).
This requires something similar to Gdel's incompleteness theorem, but not exactly the same, since we need to reject axiomatic reduction as a mechanism to prove theorems.
quote:
Just because physics is applied math doesn't mean that the findings of physics are subject to the incompleteness of math.
Since physics does not necessarily depend on axiomatic reduction, I agree. Its incompleteness must have another source. The statement to prove is: "within the collection of possible observations for a statement, there will always be at least one that contradicts the statement." It looks indeed very much like Gdel's theorem, but it is not exactly the same. So, I concede this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2008 1:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2008 12:02 AM erikp has replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 23 of 249 (492018)
12-26-2008 8:51 AM


"just" a theory?
Reading all this, I think an important observation needs to be made: what sense does it ultimately make to talk in terms of something being "just" a theory (thus, impossible to prove "right"), when in reality there is simply nothing better available (no kind of knowledge that is more reliable) to compare it to? Absolute Truth is nothing but a mythical ghost that can be chased, but can never be captured. One is real, the other is out of reach by definition.
Hammering on the imperfections of scientific theories in general, thus doesn't do their true value and place in our existence justice. Not that we shouldn't try to falsify them, but they should be treated with the proper respect. I'm sure Einstein didn't exactly "look down" on Newton and his flawed theories.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 12-26-2008 9:27 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 249 (492035)
12-26-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Annafan
12-26-2008 8:51 AM


Re: "just" a theory?
Reading all this, I think an important observation needs to be made: what sense does it ultimately make to talk in terms of something being "just" a theory (thus, impossible to prove "right"), when in reality there is simply nothing better available (no kind of knowledge that is more reliable) to compare it to? Absolute Truth is nothing but a mythical ghost that can be chased, but can never be captured. One is real, the other is out of reach by definition.
The most frequent use of "its just a theory" is by creationists, who use that term almost exclusively in seeking to denigrate the theory of evolution.
quote:
"Its not true [accurate, important, useful, etc.], its just a theory."
As you correctly point out, there is nothing higher in science than a theory.
So why do creationists repeatedly claim, "Its just a theory?"
Is it dishonesty, or merely ignorance?
Actually, its a bit of both.
Ignorance: Most creationists know little about science. Their belief provides all the answers, so they don't need to study science. To the extreme fundamentalists, science is the enemy, and a tool of Satan, anyway. Really! You can learn a lot about creationism, apologetics, and junk science, but little about real science, by visiting the various creationist websites.
Dishonesty: Many creationists are trying to equate intelligent design and evolution by calling both theories [ID is not a scientific theory]. So we see, "Teach all the theories, its only fair." This is right up there with "Teach the controversy" -- when there is no such controversy in science, just one drummed up by the lawyers and PR flaks over at the Discovery Institute. And these arguments are made not in the scientific journals, but as part of a PR campaign designed to influence school boards and state legislatures. (Thankfully the courts have seen through this duplicity.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Annafan, posted 12-26-2008 8:51 AM Annafan has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 25 of 249 (492037)
12-26-2008 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by erikp
12-23-2008 6:01 AM


Bad analogy.
Actually, it was a prety good analogy
gravity is not yet fully observed, and therefore, unproven, and absolutely not a fact.
Say What?
Futhermore, Gdel's incompleteness theorem deducts that there must be observations that do not fit the theory of gravity at all. That is also what Popper clearly states: one day or the other, gravity theory will prove to be false. So, the correct status for gravity theory is necessarily: unproven, false.
Your understanding of the incompleteness theorem seems to be incomplete

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 6:01 AM erikp has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 249 (492038)
12-27-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by erikp
12-25-2008 7:38 AM


erikp responds to me:
quote:
Gravitational theory can be represented as a number. If it has an axiomatic proof (which I doubt ...), this proof can be represented as a number too.
Um, that doesn't answer the question. How? How can gravitational theory be used to derive "1 + 1 = 2"? Be specific.
Note, you directly contradict the requirements of the Incompleteness Theorems in your statement. The theorem states that given an axiomatic set theory sophisticated enough to model arithmetic, there will be statements that are unprovable.
If gravitational theory is not axiomatic, how can it be subject to incompleteness?
Of course, this still doesn't handle another issue that I neglected to mention: You keep saying, "false," but the Incompleteness Theorems aren't about false. They're about being unable to prove a truth value.
The Continuum Hypothesis is either true or false. We just don't know which and can never know given our current axiomatic set theory.
quote:
This is obvious.
Incorrect. It is anything but obvious. What is a number in gravitational terms? I don't see it and I'm a mathematician. It would help if you could provide specifics.
quote:
Anything that can be represented in text, can be represented as a number, since every letter in the text is mapped to a number (ascii, unicode, ...)
Irrelevant. Please stick to the topic. You are insisting that gravitational theory is subject to the Incompleteness Theorems. The question is not whether or not a peculiar coincidence of symbology can be represented by another symbol. It's whether or not gravity, in and of itself, can represent a number.
quote:
Gdel does not derive addition from it.
I didn't say he did. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
quote:
He analyses the tuples (T,PROOF(T)), which simply associates each numerically represented theorem T with its proof PROOF(T). Then he demonstrates that there are theorems T that are associated with themselves (fixed points), while claiming that they are unprovable.
Irrelevant. You still haven't managed to show that gravitational theory is a set theory sufficiently powerful enough to model arithmetic. Until you do, you're just engaging in mental masturbation.
quote:
The fact the theorem can be written in text, is a more than sufficient proof that the theorem can be represented as a number.
Irrelevant. It is not sufficient that you can replace one symbol with another. The Incompletness Theorems are about axiomatic systems of set theory. Where is the evidence that gravitational theory is an axiomatic system of set theory? You claim in your own words that it isn't axiomatic.
Then how do the Incompleteness Theorems apply?
quote:
The problem consists in demonstrating that this contradicting observation -- in a set of given conditions of minimal complexity -- must exist, without having to pinpoint it (without the need to disprove the theory).
Word salad doesn't help. So far, you still haven't shown gravitational theory to be an axiomatic system of set theory sufficiently powerful enough to model arithmetic.
You admit that gravitational theory isn't axiomatic. Then how do the Incompleteness Theorems apply?
quote:
This requires something similar to Gdel's incompleteness theorem, but not exactly the same, since we need to reject axiomatic reduction as a mechanism to prove theorems.
But the Incompleteness Theorems are all about axiomatic set theories. If you're going to abandon the entire foundation, then why on earth do you expect the results of that foundation to apply?
quote:
Since physics does not necessarily depend on axiomatic reduction, I agree. Its incompleteness must have another source.
Why? There are complete and consistent axiomatic systems. Presburger arithmetic, for example, is both complete and consistent. It's even decidable. However, it isn't powerful enough to model arithmetic: There is no multiplication.
Why do you assume that gravitational theory is powerful enough to model arithmetic? Not all systems can do that.
quote:
The statement to prove is: "within the collection of possible observations for a statement, there will always be at least one that contradicts the statement."
And where is the axiomatic system we are going to be analysing this statement within? The Incompleteness Theorems are about axiomatic systems. If there is no axiomatic system, why on earth would we insist that they apply?
quote:
It looks indeed very much like Gdel's theorem, but it is not exactly the same. So, I concede this point.
Do you really? I need you to state it unequivocally: Gravitational theory has nothing to do with the Incompletness Theorems. Gravitational theory just might be absolutely correct.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by erikp, posted 12-25-2008 7:38 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by erikp, posted 12-27-2008 3:11 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 27 of 249 (492041)
12-27-2008 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
12-27-2008 12:02 AM


quote:
You still haven't managed to show that gravitational theory is a set theory sufficiently powerful enough to model arithmetic.
True.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2008 12:02 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 12-27-2008 3:36 AM erikp has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 249 (492042)
12-27-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by erikp
12-27-2008 3:11 AM


quote:
You still haven't managed to show that gravitational theory is a set theory sufficiently powerful enough to model arithmetic.
True.
Nor have you addressed my comments in post #10, above.
But you have amply demonstrated why most working scientists have no use for philosophy

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by erikp, posted 12-27-2008 3:11 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by erikp, posted 12-27-2008 4:03 AM Coyote has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 29 of 249 (492043)
12-27-2008 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
12-27-2008 3:36 AM


quote:
But you have amply demonstrated why most working scientists have no use for philosophy
Completely besides the point.
The point is that it is sufficient to demonstrate that a theory can be rephrased as a set theory sufficiently powerful to model arithmetic, to demonstrate that it necessarily contains false statements. This is one way to demonstrate that a theory is false, without disproving it directly.
A more interesting way would consist in demonstrating (for example, using a fixed point theorem similar to Gdel) that the collection of possible observations for particular kinds of statements must necessarily contain contradictions. This has not been proven as yet.
Gdel's work is very interesting, as it shows the limitations of mathematics and other formal axiomatic systems (the fact that they are necessarily false). These principles cannot be generalized, however, because axiomatic reduction does indeed not amount to "proof". It simply relegates the burden of proof to the axioms themselves, which remain necessarily unproven.
Formal proof for the hypothesis that science is necessarily false, would otherwise be very useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 12-27-2008 3:36 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2008 6:35 AM erikp has not replied
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-27-2008 7:18 AM erikp has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 249 (492045)
12-27-2008 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by erikp
12-27-2008 4:03 AM


erikp writes:
quote:
The point is that it is sufficient to demonstrate that a theory can be rephrased as a set theory sufficiently powerful to model arithmetic, to demonstrate that it necessarily contains false statements.
Incorrect. You really don't know what "incomplete" means, do you? It does not mean "false." It means that there is no way to come up with any truth value.
The Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable. Assuming it is true does not lead to a contradiction. Assuming it is false does not lead to a contradiction. There is no way to decide the truth value under ZFC.
quote:
This is one way to demonstrate that a theory is false, without disproving it directly.
Incorrect. Incompleteness doesn't say anything about a theory being "false." It has everything to do with it being "incomplete." That's why they're called the "Incompleteness" Theorems, not the "Inconsistency" Theorems.
quote:
A more interesting way would consist in demonstrating (for example, using a fixed point theorem similar to Gdel) that the collection of possible observations for particular kinds of statements must necessarily contain contradictions. This has not been proven as yet.
Since it's a pile of crap. The Incompleteness Theorems do not claim an axiomatic set theory sufficiently powerful to model arithmetic include false statements. On the contrary, they state that such theories contain statements that cannot be decided.
Do you even know what "incomplete" means? Presburger arithmetic is complete and consistent. So what does this do to your claim that it contains false statements?
quote:
Gdel's work is very interesting, as it shows the limitations of mathematics and other formal axiomatic systems (the fact that they are necessarily false).
Incorrect. Godel's work has to do with incompleteness. Do you even know what that word means? How do you reconcile your statement with Presburger arithmetic which is complete, consistent, and decidable?
quote:
Formal proof for the hypothesis that science is necessarily false, would otherwise be very useful.
And you understanding what any of those words means would be even more useful.
What does "incomplete" mean?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by erikp, posted 12-27-2008 4:03 AM erikp has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024