Progress

[AV1611VET]

If a scientific endeavor fails to achieve its stated expectations ... even fails drastically, but from it comes a new and/or better product; is that scientific endeavor considered a "success" or a "failure"? or both? or neither? or what?

 

[Michael]

If a scientific endeavor fails to achieve its stated expectations ... even fails drastically, but from it comes a new and/or better product; is that scientific endeavor considered a "success" or a "failure"? or both? or neither? or what?

Typically most would consider it a 'success', to a point. For instance Newton's mathematical models of gravity took us to the moon and back and they are still used ( I believe) to navigate this solar system. Newton's theories about gravity are therefore still quite "useful" and "successful" even though GR is typically thought to have replaced Netwon's concept of gravity in most astronomy circles.

 

[AV1611VET]

Typically most would consider it a 'success', to a point.

What do you mean by 'success to a point'?

 

[Michael]

What do you mean by 'success to a point'?

Well, in the example I gave earlier, Newton's formulas are successful in helping us navigate inside of our own solar system. That seems like no small "success" from my vantage point.

It isn't however all that successful in terms of predicting what happens when particles of mass travel at relativistic speeds, particularly speeds approaching the speed of light. That's where GR is more 'successful'. Although Newton's ideas were 'successful" in terms of navigating our own solar system, some would argue that GR is "more successful" in terms of explaining the behaviors of the WHOLE universe, not just the behaviors of objects that are inside of our solar system. GR however was "more successful" at predicting the orbit of Mercury than Netwon's formulas. Both were very "close" to predicting it's orbit, but GR came "closer" and was therefore considered to be more successful.

 

[Michael]

Ok, just to play devil's advocate:

You could however make an argument that a ptolemaic universe of the past, one that was supposedly composed of an Earth centric universe and lots of "epicycles", was somewhat useful in predicting the location of objects in space. However, that mathematical model and mental concept about the universe turned out to have been more of a hindrance to scientific progress than it had value in the final analysis.

 

[Delphiki]

If a scientific endeavor fails to achieve its stated expectations ... even fails drastically, but from it comes a new and/or better product; is that scientific endeavor considered a "success" or a "failure"? or both? or neither? or what?

Success.

Whether a scientific endeavor works as predicted or completely unexpected, they are both favorable, because both scenarios improve our understanding of the universe.

In fact, scientists generally love proving something wrong or being proven wrong.

Ever heard of learning from your mistakes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Success.

Whether a scientific endeavor works as predicted or completely unexpected, they are both favorable, because both scenarios improve our understanding of the universe.

In fact, scientists generally love proving something wrong or being proven wrong.

Ever heard of learning from your mistakes?

Was the Challenger's last mission branded a "success", in light of the new-and-improved shuttles?

(If you don't know, then I'll assume it was ... based on your answer; unless you say otherwise.)

 

[selfinflikted]

^ Saw that coming a mile away. You are nothing if not consistent, AV

 

[AV1611VET]

^ Saw that coming a mile away. You are nothing if not consistent, AV

You just know me too well!

 

[Freodin]

If a scientific endeavor fails to achieve its stated expectations ... even fails drastically, but from it comes a new and/or better product; is that scientific endeavor considered a "success" or a "failure"? or both? or neither? or what?

"Or what". It is a learning experience.

 

[selfinflikted]

"Or what". It is a learning experience.

I agree. With regards to the Challenger disaster, I would consider that a tragic failure, however so, I would also consider it a learning experience as well.

 

[Blayz]

If a scientific endeavor fails to achieve its stated expectations ... even fails drastically, but from it comes a new and/or better product; is that scientific endeavor considered a "success" or a "failure"? or both? or neither? or what?

Pfizer went looking for a new heart medication a few years ago. When they tested the drug in mice, they noticed that it caused erections, which is pretty much a bad idea for a heart medication.

So instead they marketed it as Viagra, and forgot about the heart medication.

I'd call that a success.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Was the Challenger's last mission branded a "success", in light of the new-and-improved shuttles?

(If you don't know, then I'll assume it was ... based on your answer; unless you say otherwise.)

The terms "success" and "failure" are loaded terms. You're attaching emotional concepts to these things in order to construct an argument, which is fallacious.

In general, when we learn more about the universe that's a good thing. But sometimes the methods are sobering, like when mistakes resulting in the loss of life are involved. At any rate, we learn from tragedies so we don't have to see them repeated.

I'm glad that not everyone sits on the sidelines and harasses the method like you do. Otherwise, no advancements would ever be made.

 

[AV1611VET]

At any rate, we learn from tragedies so we don't have to see them repeated.

So now, since this happened, we have new and improved space shuttles, don't we?

 

[Belk]

Seems more of a philosophical question then a science question. You are making a judgement call based on you perspective. Christopher Columbus died feeling himself a colossal failure yet every school kid (In the Americas at least) knows his name.

 

[Freodin]

So now, since this happened, we have new and improved space shuttles, don't we?

While we are nitpicking... how many space shuttles exploded at launch after Challenger?

 

[Skavau]

Was the Challenger's last mission branded a "success", in light of the new-and-improved shuttles?

(If you don't know, then I'll assume it was ... based on your answer; unless you say otherwise.)

I am not sure why you bring this up so often though in the context of the thread I am not surprised you did. It was a disaster yet any knowledge gained from it hopefully will prevent it happening again. I am not sure whether it was an issue with design or a technical fault but regardless we've learned something somewhere (indeed at cost).

So now what? What is your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not sure why you bring this up so often though in the context of the thread I am not surprised you did. It was a disaster yet any knowledge gained from it hopefully will prevent it happening again. I am not sure whether it was an issue with design or a technical fault but regardless we've learned something somewhere (indeed at cost).

So now what? What is your point?

You have two rubber stamps: one says SUCCESS, the other says FAILURE.

You have in front of you a report containing the Challenger disaster, along with the design of the new-and-improved (and much safer) shuttle.

Stamp the report.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You have two rubber stamps: one says SUCCESS, the other says FAILURE.

You have in front of you a report containing the Challenger disaster, along with the design of the new-and-improved (and much safer) shuttle.

Stamp the report.

FALSE. DICHOTOMY.

 

[AV1611VET]

FALSE. DICHOTOMY.

Then show me where it doesn't apply to my OP.