h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(I'm at odds)if a long standing theorem by a notable "past" person/s was proven wrong, or even with a "modern" theorem. The time taken in counter arguments/debates/models/formula for and against etc etc. This would not really change the history books ?

I use Pluto as an example - planet/non planet. Only a few have made THAT decision, yet the views of such as medon't countand I'm a "member" of THIS solar system as well

History books are just that, they are an historical account read by the current generation, they record mankinds previous attempts to reconcile and give what they thought at that time was a true and factual account, given there current understanding of there known environment at that time.
The speed of modern developments do now make the thought of history books look quite antiquated but I suppose there has to be a record of mankinds follies and triumphs , if so only the current generation can learn as to the perils of what the human mind is capable of.

As for poor old Pluto , it a simple case of committee determining size.

"In the case of claiming most, then of course one cat can't falsify it. But you still need the whole sample, or at least to know how many cats there are!" [Jabberwock]

There is something called the Law of Large Numbers. A person's "proof" of anything is only as good as the amount of data that was available, the more the better. Plus, it makes sense to have a very large time frame if you're trying to predict the occurence of things that are very very rare -- asteroids striking the Earth, for instance.

Its not always possible to know the “whole sample” as in a random field were exists continuously changing values
To be defined as “Rare” is a statement that implies that what ever is been observed is not found in large numbers and so of interest.
The law of large numbers is an expression resulting from probability theory, this deals with random variables, stochastic processes and events, a mathematical abstraction of non deterministic  events or measured quantities that may either be single occurrences or evolve over time in an apparently random fashion as with asteroids hitting the earth.
A “snap shot” could be considered to be a random event, many “snap shots” would allow a prediction, as they will exhibit certain patterns the law of large numbers is a way of expressing this.

OK, folks, a most stimulating discussion.
Just to add that Popper was not universally popular, if you'll forgive the pun. He was regarded as being an oversimplifier. This is from the 'Talking Philosophy' website:

In 1946 Karl Popper addressed the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club on the subject Are There Philosophical Problems? The subsequent discussion, chaired by Russell, is known to have been lively. At one point Wittgenstein, brandishing a poker, is said to have demanded of Popper that he offer an example of a moral rule: “Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers”, Popper is said to have replied. At which point Wittgenstein stormed out.


http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2630

That last paragraph rings a bell, Jabs.I remember reading about Wittgenstein's raging against a fellow philosopher, but I didn't remember that it was Popper that ignited his wrath.

[I hope that Popper wasn't that guy who ha dpenguins. ]

[I read or skim vast amounts of stuff, and it is usually impossible to remember where I got what factoids when I think about them later on. This is an occupational hazaed. I'm sure other reference librarians have the same problem....]

Paul, I imagine to be a reference librarian, need a vast amount of , lets say, superlative mental storage, which I know that my brain for one is not capable of as I suffer from dyslexia.
I tend to speed read , that’s to say that my mind looks for key words which in turn makes me stop and read the sentence fully, this way I get a feel for the article
If after a quick scan, the article aliens itself to a pattern of interest that I hold, then I will revisit it later and read the item fully.
This gives me more time to mentally digest its content, hopefully registering it and allowing me to recall it at a later date.

What I have to do is constantly remind myself that the "fact" in my mind was time-sensitive. It may have been regarded as true at the time, but there's no telling what subsequent discoveries have been made about it.

Verb sap.

Paul, that is scientifically correct. But you'll have a better time in your brain if you just accept that things are what they seem and how they appear, until a new theory comes along to falsify what everyone thought.

On a certain level of discourse a chair is a chair, even though on another level of discourse, it's made up of millions of atoms and subatoms whirling about in space.

and the debate of it's structural make-upwood/metal/plastic


I can just see Shakespeare to be a chair or not to be a chair etc

and those immortal words - Queen Anne's legs have got dry rot

I'm pretty sure that Hamlet was never a chiar, but you never know!

It’s a good job that Hamlet was not fond of cats or his opening soliloquy would have further perplexed folk on his take on the Copenhagen interpretation  

Alas, poor Chippendale! I knew him, Horatio (when he had 4 legs)

That's a lot of yoricks, if you ask me

[Has this thread become the graveyard for tired humor?]

Oh I don’t know, even the most eminent and the most respected most have a humours side to them, otherwise their work would send them

should be must not most