sansahansan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jammer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick Baudé Wrote:
> > > I disagree I put the intuitive leaps at
> a
> > 99%
> > > SUCCESS rate with a 1% failure, and the
> > grunt
> > > experimenters more like about 99.9%
> failure.
> > Again
> > > all numbers pulled out of thin air
>
> Heh... intuitively perhaps?
Definitely
>
> >
> > Basically, by one rather narrow translation,
> ANY
> > hypothesis not grounded in hard core testing
> of
> > same, becomes based on intuition, hunches if
> you
> > will?
> >
> > Have I oversimplified that?
> >
> > Jammer
> >
>
> Eh, somewhat perhaps.
>
> I'd almost drifted away from this topic when I
> realized something...
> If it wasn't for the flash of intuition, the great
> leapers of science, we wouldn't be at the level of
> technology we are.
Exactly!
>
> The first thinking being that saw a piece of
> floating lumber and realized that it could help
> him stay dry in water...
> The first thinking being that used a piece of
> smoldering debris to carry fire in order to make
> fire do their bidding...
Since I'm more into biology I notice how animals solve problem using what could only be described as a leap of intuition. For instance I go for walks in the morning and notice that crows routinely find stale slices of bread. What does the bird do with this stale piece of bread? He looks for a little puddle and then drops the bread in it, and then pushes it below the surface to make sure it soaks up the water faster. Now I know that crows don't sit around running experiments on the absorbtion and capillary properties of stale bread so somewhere along the line they had an 'aha' experience. Drop bread in water, push it under to soak up more water faster, eat bread and simultaneously get rehydrated and food at the same time.
>
> Those were the first intuitive leapers, and they
> did it without the grunt work of falsification.
>
> Unless you count empirical testing? "Ouch! that
> burns!", and the number of drowned individuals
> since the first man + water testings.
>
>
>
> In short, I think we need both for technological
> progression (note, tech progression <>
> science research, just requires it), but I wonder
> how much falsification was done in the pre-dawn of
> human technology? Was trial and error that showed
> the sharper rock cut better, or was it intuitive
> leaping??
>
> ooo.. distracted now!
>
> :chocalate: