Well, the jury is out on that. If you can drive something delicate at resonance, you can break it, most likely. Easiest way to break a glass window, though, I suspect, would be to get a huge subwoofer, and drive it in feedback from accilerometer in the middle of the window. That 21"...

Ok, I have real work to do here. The last article from Mr. Jong up there (Not "Jung"? ) changes the subject, and avoids the issues previously raised. And it's all about "teaching the controversy" in my opinion. I don't have time for that, or for an argument that ignores that we have learned...

Quote: Originally Posted by jonathanjong So, you're denying that scientific realism and scientific instrumentalism are two distinct positions? If so, you should publish a book! You'll have solved the biggest problem in philosophy of science. Well, you know all the rhetorical...

Quote: Originally Posted by jonathanjong sigh... <puts philosophy of science hat on> There are scientific realists and scientific anti-realists (or instrumentalists). Scientific realists, including myself, think that science aims to discover (or reveal) truths about the world...

Quote: Originally Posted by jonathanjong ^What do you mean by "work"? Is this a plug for scientific pragmatism? Does this exclude scientific realism? Or are you proposing that only results that falsify the null hypothesis are properly "scientific"? Absurd. If something works...

The wave is travelling past you. You hear (or not) the whole wave as a time function as it passes you by, so saying "hearing the whole wave" is a bit of a misnomer. At very low frequencies in small spaces, under the frequency where the space acts like its pressure-driven the issue changes...

Science is that which results from the practice of the scientific method, and is based ultimately on one simple question and the answers to that question. The question is: Can it be tested? If no, its never going to be science. If yes, then the question is "Does it work": If no, it's...