Even if I agreed with that principle, I think that the Hale Telescope, which Edwin Hubble used, added more to our understanding of the cosmos than the orbiting telescope named after him.
In his book, One Good Turn, Witold Rybczynski [sic] argues it’s the screwdriver and the precision screw. Without them no precision adjustments are possible, among other things.
I would put writing first but without yours ---- clay tablets do get a little bulky after a while.
I would second this–if I can’t understand you, I’ve wasted your time, nothing’s learned. If you can’t understand me, you’ve wasted my time, same result.
And while not a tool, the most important thing for science is, of course, curiosity. Without “Why does(n’t) this…?” what gets done?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny…’
Isaac Asimov
^ Right on, zoid! Superb quote, truly.
I haven’t read everything but the sextant must surely be up there.
Poop on a stick.
If our ancient primate ancestors had never invented it to a keep warring groups at bay they never would have had the downtime to sit around and think. And thus they never would have thought of the important stuff like poop on a rock, fire and the wheel to eventually lead us to our greatness today.
Yup.
I agree about eyeglasses.
How about the inclined plane, or the wheel.
I have to quote the movie Shirley Valentine. Everyone who hasn’t seen it should. At one point, Shirley is doing a flashback to her high school days (British, so not sure teenage days)and the fancy always perfect girl and she both raise their hands for the same question.
Perfect girl: The vacuum cleaner.
Headmistress (I guess): Incorrect. (obviously disappointed.)
Young Shirley (so excited she can’t speak/waving her hand wildly): Miss! Miss! It was the wheel!
Headmistress (shocked face)
There’s back and forth and voice over where Shirley talks about her dad talking about it to her and then Headmistress screams at her "You must’ve cheated. There is no way you could’ve known that! Someone must’ve told you the answer!’
Shirley: “Of course someone told me the answer!. How the bleeding fuck could I have known it any other way?!”
Here’s a hint: The most important scientific tool ever invented is neither a “tool” or any object or device created by men - it is an open mind, which is why most of what is called “science” today is such a complete farce. For example, if I were to say that the earth was actually flat, not a globe - what would happen? The idea would be immediately dismissed, I’d be called crazy, and nobody would even give it a second thought. However, that is precisely the problem with “science” today: condemnation before investigation. If you do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, you are immediately dismissed and ostracized by the “scientific community” as an ignorant, religious nut, who is willfully choosing to be a complete idiot. This is an unfortunate state of affairs for everyone involved, because it hinders the pursuit of truth and enlightenment in more ways than just the dismissal of the possibility that “God” exists - it completely discounts many legitimate investigations into all kinds of research which is categorized as “supernatural.” This is beginning to change, but the hallowed halls of academia are still very, very resistant to it.
As I mentioned earlier, no. Science is not based on an “open mind”. There is an endless stream of useless filth produced by human thinkers. Only ideas that (1) can be demonstrated to be real effects, as shown under controlled conditions and seen by multiple, independent people in separate facilities or (2) are theories that explain all of the evidence with no exceptions whatsoever are worthy of being considered as “factual knowledge”.
Everything else is just garbage. Certain ideas that haven’t quite passed #1 and #2 but at least haven’t failed are worthy of further investigation.
We can demonstrate evolution in a test tube quite readily, and of course it explains everything regarding the development life on earth. So it strongly passes #1 and #2. If you have an alternate theory, you need to either demonstrate it happening with empirical experiments or show how it is both a simpler, more useful theory that evolution, or explains events that evolution is wrong about.
Let’s say your alternate idea is “divine creation”. Ok. Show under controlled conditions God creating a new species. It should be easy. Just put some sterile media in a sealed container and pray to God to create life there. Or, if you believe god has to start with existing life, put a single species in the container and ask god to create some variants.
Show me some results, and replicate these results using other priests and other labs, and I’ll be glad to look at them, as well as most scientists.
What a crock of shit. You have zero understanding of science.
Yes it is!
Right. It’s high time that somebody actually checked to see whether or not the earth is flat.
http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/bluemarble/BlueMarble768x787.jpg
The dismissal of the claim that the Earth is, in fact, flat isn’t the result of an insufficiently ‘open mind’; it is that there is such an overwhelming amount of oberservational data clearing demonstrating the generally sphereoid shape of the planet that an opposing claim is beyond being merely absurd and into deliberate obtusity. Unless there is some extraordinary new evidence supporting this “Flat Earth” hypothesis, there is no need for investigation. So many every day applications and tools, from GPS satellites and aircraft navigation to celestisal mechanics and our entire system of measuring position on the planet via longitudinal lines would be wholly broken.
If you do not “subscribe” (i.e. accept) the evidence of evolution which is found with such a wealth of evidence in the fossil record and direct observation of adaptation in zoological field and microbiological laboratory applications, the odds are very, very likely that you are some kind of religious nutter who elects to maintain a very deliberate ignorance about anything that contradicts an “Intelligent Designer” or “Goddidit” viewpoint, especially given that even many major religions have accepted evolution and Darwin’s theory of natural selection as being essentially as inarguable as gravitation or atomic theory. The people who try to “break” evolution by nitpicking small supposed flaws (most of which are either a lack of context-specific data or a misunderstandingon the part of the contestant) are intellectually dishonest in their unwillingness to address the real scope of the theory and the vast array of means that it has been verified.
Oh, look, this isn’t an argument. It’s just a contradiction.
Stranger
If that’s the way this is going to go, I’ll be back down the hall in Abuse.
<under breath>stupid git</under breath>
Stranger
Put your hand there!
Stranger, I feel my answer was better. Maybe the OP just discovered the alien spacecraft that is the real reason life exists on Earth. Maybe he found a way to replicate miracles from God on command. I mean, it’s hugely unlikely, but possible. There are other areas of science that the commonly held view is wrong about, I know this because retractions and new evidence comes in every day. The point is, instead of calling someone a stupid git, a real scientist would say “extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, show me a piece of the alien spacecraft or demonstrate a miracle for me right here and now or go away”. The key difference is the scientist is not so certain of his beliefs he won’t’ accept evidence that would challenge them if the evidence is strong enough. Similarly, conservation of momentum is probably the law, but if some of those wacko inertia-less space drives actually push a real satellite - since the lab tests are probably pushing off the walls of the chamber they are in - a real scientist would be at least willing to look at the data instead of saying “my knowledge of physics as established about 1 century ago is flawless”.