But you know that's not what she meant, which means you're being deliberately obtuse....which I demonstrate by suggesting she apply it to her own real life.
You know she didn't mean gravity would change right now; she meant it could change at some arbitrarily distant time in the future.
Well, remember, we weren't there. We did not hear what she said in context. We have only the OP's contextless transcript. And since we can't judge, we are obliged to give her the benefit of the doubt. For all we know, the next thing she said was "of course, that doesn't mean go jump off a cliff. We're pretty darn sure it won't change anytime soon - but the principle is there."I seriously question her powers of reason and motives. If she thinks a tiny, tiny probability should be given so much weight, let her action speak louder than words. Otherwise, her point is incredibly poorly made, and her motivation, therefore, highly suspect.
I see the point as similar to saying that QM asks the question 'is the Moon there when we aren't watching it?' or 'is the cat is two states at once?'
The budding scientist must be taught that our knowledge, while excellent, is not ironclad. To temper the numbers with a sanity check.
No. Comments like ''why doesn't she go jump off a cliff?" are discussion-closers, not discussion-openers. They designed to encourage derision and dismissal of the opposing case. They are appeals to emotion rather than rationality. That is argumentative.ar·gu·men·ta·tive *(ärgy-mnt-tv)
1. Given to arguing; disputatious.
2. Of or characterized by argument:
If I were, which I am not, then you would be also,
Because miniscule is not zero.How does it teach humility to coach people to doubt an assertion which has a minuscule probability of being erroneous?
In the classical world, a particle in a box will stay in that box FOR.EV.ER. In the quantum world, small as it may be, budding scientists must realize that our world is fuzzy around the edges. Gravity's constancy is the same kind of 'remember you can't speak for forever.'
It is not a knee-jerk reaction. But nice tryDave, it speaks well of you that your knee-jerk reaction was to assume...
The hallmark of a knee-jerk reaction is evident in yours - when pressed to defend it, you went off on a tangent about UFOs and perpetual motion machines - as if she was guilty of saying these things. You judge this case on the merits of some other case(s) that you obviously relate to this one, yet they have no bearing here.
It was apparent that you had your arguments cocked and loaded for rapid fire long before this thread was started and you fired them whether or not they actually applied here. That is a knee-jerk reaction.