Saturday, June 30, 2018
At least in natural sciences, I would say, it is not clear, how to distinguish these 2 concepts. Discovery of a phenomenon is one thing, that surely can happen by accident, but then to "create" a working framework with a predictive theory out of a mere "monkey" discovery is a far more creative work that always will need a deductive mind. Often this "discovery" is also not much more than an extrapolation of known models to a bigger parameter space, as seen so many a times with electro-magnetic waves (accidental x-ray discovery, accidental infrared-discovery). But on the other hand, there are also some discoveries made in astrophysics that were done by a thorough search for predicted phenomena, worked out on a purely theoretical basis. This, I would name a tad more creative than the aforementioned accidental discoveries. I think I would conclude that answering the question, if discovery and creation are the same in science, it really depends on what you see as a "useful" discovery? As it wouldn't have helped the world at all, when the Curie couple, at the discovery of x-rays, just would have stopped to research it, saying: "Hey we found some invisible stuff that is black-ending photographic plates"! But they put hard work in it, and even paid with their life’s (though unknowingly) to understand why that was happening. So, actually, I dare to make my own conclusion: in science there is no discovery without creation or vice versa.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Safety is the state of being "safe", the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. This can take the form of being protected from the event or from exposure to something that causes health or economical losses. It can include protection of people or of possessions. The accidents may take place every where but it is necessary to make precaution. Likewise, Claimsforyou.com provides the compensation for the accidents happen. Accidents at work can happen in various ways and even if you think no-one was necessarily to blame, you may have a Accident Compensation Claim, involving defective equipment or machinery, inadequate training in the use of machinery, lifting heavy objects, using dangerous machinery, faulty, damaged or slippery flooring, careless acts by other workers causing an accident, lack of safety clothing for example. Accidents may be caused by any means, even though it may be fault of another group or individual, but if they were only partly to blame, then you can have an Accident Compensation Claim. Employers are required by law to have Employer Liability Insurance and the insurance company will deal with your accident injury claim and losses, including loss of earnings. Even if your accident hasn't caused you to take time off work, you can still claim compensation for the physical pain and suffering of your injury. Accidents at work can happen in various ways and even if you think no-one was necessarily to blame, you may have a Accident Compensation Claim, involving defective equipment or machinery, inadequate training in the use of machinery, lifting heavy objects, using dangerous machinery, faulty, damaged or slippery flooring, careless acts by other workers causing an accident, lack of safety clothing for example. It is necessary for a Business people to register for it to ensure the safety of your employers. This site does not charge hidden costs or deduction.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Popper showed us that we only can falsify theories, never proof their certainty with the result (as quoted over and over again by Popper): There is no absolute certainty. Does that not automatically imply that scientists have to believe in a current model/theory as long as it has not been falsified? Maybe this "belief" is proportional to the number of times this current model has been tried to falsify, but still I would say, one cannot escape the "belief" element. And this is not restricted to Popper's scheme. Kuhn's world of paradigms needs at least as much, if not more the belief in the current paradigm. So, surprisingly, although I believe (oh no!) that one motivation for scientists to work in science always has been the safety of experimental falsification or the safety of logical falsification of theoretical models respectively, none in science seems to be able to escape the element of belief at all??