Please some explain this to me

[famousringo]

theprof00 said:

This is getting way too much in depth. I asked that first question rhetorically, of course there will be someone that does predict it, but among the rather large majority of people, nobody could possibly have guessed correctly. (Like you said, even he doesn't completely jump in the water. He estimated, and saw how things could work, but was not someone who said it will work.)

The quantum physics things is where things get sticky. Most of it is based completely on past results and assumptions, none of it is concretely proven, and the science itself deals in things that can almost never be proven, or at least not within our lifetimes. Belief in something that cannot be proven? Sounds like faith to me.

 

 And you're confused again. You don't see the distinction between proof and evidence. Proof exists almost exclusively in mathematics and logic, while evidence is where we get most of our useful knowledge from. None of our physics are proven, they just have a large body of evidence supporting them. That doesn't mean that our acceptance that physics theories are largely correct is faith. We have a lot of evidence to back it up.

People who predicted Wii's failure looked at market share and brand power and left it at that. The few who predicted Wii's success looked at a wider body of evidence. Business theories like blue ocean and disruption. I disagree with your assertion that evidence is useless in predicting the future. A person who looks at more evidence before making a prediction will tend to be more accurate than somebody who throws darts at a sheet of random numbers.

I'm not asking for proof that this generation will last ten years, because I know that nobody can give me that. I'm asking for evidence, and so far, I've been the only person to put some on the table.