"Interpolation" actually works exceedingly well for building the magic trick we call "technology".
So, what's the problem then?
But as I've pointed out many times despite the fact even animals employ counterweight it doesn't mean they or we understand the nature of gravity. The observation that all things want to fall is not the same as understanding why or how they do.
What does that have to do with the interpolation of data and phenomenon?
Yes!!! They apply in the real world. But so does every other force, process, and logic including those we have yet to discover. This is why we can't make prediction.
You're not making any sense. You just acknowledged that interpolation of data, and assuming the phenomenon we observe in the lab also apply in the wild, works
exceedingly well - those are your words.
When we build a GPS satellite and calibrate its internal atomic clock to account for the relativistic effects, then we ARE making predictions. We are PREDICTING that the extreme speed at which it orbits the planet, will alter the flow of time relative to the observer.
Whenever we build ANY piece of technology, we are making countless predictions, based on what is known from lab experiments and alike.
When we put a CPU vent in a PC, we are
predicting that the CPU will be getting hot and that it needs to be cooled down in order for it to not overheat and ensure that it continues working.
When we build
anything at all, we are making countless amounts of
predictions as a direct result of interpolating data and knowledge gathered through lab research.
Nature doesn't isolate variables; they all work simultaneously.
Sure. So?
Do you think scientists and engineers aren't aware of that and don't keep it into account?
There's always a level of uncertainty in everything we do. That's not a good reason to then downplay all the things we DO know.
In that sense, failure is a form of success also, as it is an opportunity to learn.
If from the lab we know A and B, and later on in a practical application we find out that C is interfering with A and B, then we can go back to the drawing board and look into how to bypass C, keep C into account or whatever in order to solve the problem.
It's called learning.
Not sure what you are complaining about and / or arguing for or against.....................
People all see what they believe
No. The psychology of humans is such that emotional attachment to beliefs can make them have warped views and have problems with letting go off certain things, sure.
But in science, such behaviour doesn't fly well. In fact, the entire set up of the scientific process is actually geared towards eliminating such bias as much as possible.
This is why there are strict rules concerning how to conduct an experiment, how to analyse the results, how to draw up a report and how to have your findings reviewed by others.
Data doesn't lie, nore can data be delusional. Data is what it is.
No matter ones emotional problems with the concept of relativity.... if you don't calibrate the clocks of a GPS satellite to account for it, it's not going to work. No matter what you believe.
and then they see that nature always does exactly what they believe.
The behavior of nature / natural phenomenon doesn't care about what anybody believes.
You can believe whatever the heck you want - if you don't calibrate the GPS clocks to account for relativity, the GPS won't work. It's that simple.
Only humans and only modern humans engage in all this circular reasoning.
What circular reasoning?
