throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (10/11/85)
> "If something can be figured logically, figure it out logically with > no further ado. You're likely to screw up by doing anything else." So far so good. > [the assertion about large animals and gravity] should be flaming > obvious to anybody, particularly somebody calling himself a scientist, > supposedly more intelligent than ordinary people. Well first, what makes you think that scientists lay claim to being "more intelligent than ordinary people"? Seems like a silly thing to assume to me. But that's irrelevant. The main point here is that things that are "flaming obvious to anybody" have a way of turning out not to be the case. Some examples: - The earth is "obviously" flat. Just look at it. I can't see a curve from here, can you? And mind you discount all those wild tales that sailors tell about ships "disappearing over the horizon". That's an optical illusion, and you can't trust sailors anyhow. - The earth "obviously" doesn't move. I mean just open your eyes and look around! It isn't moving! - The sun is "obviously" smaller than the earth, and "moves through the sky". I mean just *look* at it! Isn't that what *you* see? Even very carefully crafted, "mathematical proof" forms of this have a way of turning out wrong. Such as the "proof" that heavier than air man-carying machines were "impossible" because no heat engine can possibly supply enough power without being too heavy... sounds awfully familiar. So I'm not at all impressed by somebody saying "Well just *look* at it! It *must* be the way I say... It's *obvious*." Common sense, "proof by obviousness", and a quarter will get you a phone call at a public booth. Similarly, I'm not impressed by "proofs", even with carefully detailed calculations and derivations, when the assumptions that the "proof" uses are suspect. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw