Quote:
Originally posted by legion
I realize that; I'm just trying to introduce the idea that there is an often overlooked difference between direct measurment and infering a measurement based on studying something else.
|
If you insist that all measurements be "direct" rather than "inferred/indirect", then you cannot believe in the majority of modern physics and a substantial amount of current technological achievements.
The mass of planets, stars, etc is measured from observing their effect on other things, e.g. light rays and other bodies. Obviously - we can't drop Jupiter on a bathroom scale. But NASA can slingshot probes around distant planets thanks to these indrect measurement.
The behavior and existence of subatomic particles is determined from observing their interaction with other particles via collision, decay, energy release, etc. A quark doesn't show up directly on a photographic plate.
And so on.
So, I see no reason to disbelieve scientific investigation simply because it uses indirect measurements.
Anyway, are the measurements taken from these deep cores really "indirect"? As I understand it, they are extracting and measuring the actual atmosphere that was trapped in arctic ice layers as they formed 800,000 years ago.
[Edit - as just pointed out, I guess any type of measurement has to be examined for experimental error. I imagine you should take numerous measurements from a given depth and look at how consistent or inconsistent the results are.]