TallDave wrote:Chris,
I'm just saying theory generally explains experiment rather than preceding it.
Sorry, still don't buy it.
There is a mix;
1) some things are outright
lucky breaks [penicilin].
2) Some, as you say, are accumulations on other people's observations, but this is nothing unexpected this is the way intellect develops. The 'intellectual' part is the
recognition of what a thing meant whilst others failed to notice. This isn't 'accidental', it is 'insightfulness'. Such as Kepler.
3) Some are inventions 'gone right'. You have an 'insightful' speculation, idea or curiosity no-one else has had (as 2)
and decide to test it. [If Rossi exists in one of these categories, he's here.] The outcome is something more than you anticipated e.g. Gallileo making his own telescope (someone else's idea) then looking at Jupiter. Gallilieo did not make a telescope by accident, nor accidentally look at jupiter. But he did so
in anticipation of learning something.
4) Then there is the balls-out theoretitian who makes a stunning
prediction based on previous observations before anyone else. e.g. Enistein.
Other than 1, I would not say the others are 'accidents'. Am I being persuasive for you to agree your prior post is limited in its outlook?
)
