Rules regarding reusing files from the Library?

[ApK]

My point was only that Amazon does not police or vet every copyright claim on every work sold there. Likely THEY would "let" you (try to) sell it until some one noticed and complained to them.
If that someone happened to be a motivated prosecutor, you might have a bigger problem.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But only one of that is science. I for one wouldn't say, that science is the same as p&r.

Science/Religion isn't the reason it can't be discussed here, it just tends to get political/argumentative as there is no way you are going to switch someone from one to the other on a ebook forum.

On the other hand, how would you class String Theory, science or religion? There is absolutely no proof at all it's correct.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

On the other hand, how would you class String Theory, science or religion? There is absolutely no proof at all it's correct.

String theories are scientific, although since the theorists haven't come up with any experiments to tell which, if any, of their theories correspond with reality, they are more unconfirmed hypotheses than theories as yet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

String theories are scientific, although since the theorists haven't come up with any experiments to tell which, if any, of their theories correspond with reality, they are more unconfirmed hypotheses than theories as yet.

Indeed. One of the hurdles that science has to overcome when dealing with the general public is of course that the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the language of science to its usage in everyday English. In science, a theory is a proposition that makes predictions that can be experimentally tested in order to demonstrate the validity (or falsehood) of the proposition. In everyday English a theory is widely understood to mean "an idea that I've come up with but have no proof for".

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the language of science to its usage in everyday English.

To be fair, many scientists use the word theory rather casually too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

To be fair, many scientists use the word theory rather casually too.

Indeed, but when it's used in the context of, say "the theory of relativity", or "the theory of evolution", it does have the more precise meaning of "something that makes predictions that can be experimentally tested", rather than "it's just an idea".

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Indeed. One of the hurdles that science has to overcome when dealing with the general public is of course that the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the language of science to its usage in everyday English. In science, a theory is a proposition that makes predictions that can be experimentally tested in order to demonstrate the validity (or falsehood) of the proposition. In everyday English a theory is widely understood to mean "an idea that I've come up with but have no proof for".

I agree, but again, String Theory???
Surely it should still be at the String Hypothesis stage as there does seem to be a lack of experimental evidence.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I agree, but again, String Theory???
Surely it should still be at the String Hypothesis stage as there does seem to be a lack of experimental evidence.

Yes, I agree.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I agree, but again, String Theory???
Surely it should still be at the String Hypothesis stage as there does seem to be a lack of experimental evidence.

If a scientist says "I work in string theory" he means he is working on trying to develop a complete, consistent theoretical model based on the underlying hypootheses and predictions from other more developed theories. Eg,", general relativity predicts x an y, which has been experimentally proven. String theory would be consistent with x and y so let see if we can develop a sound theory we can test to prove it."
GR started the same way. It's still being tested (as you may have seen mentioned in the news recently.)

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by ApK

If a scientist says "I work in string theory" he means he is working on trying to develop a complete, consistent theoretical model based on the underlying hypootheses and predictions from other more developed theories. Eg,", general relativity predicts x an y, which has been experimentally proven. String theory would be consistent with x and y so let see if we can develop a sound theory we can test to prove it."

In science terms, until you have a test to experimentally prove it then it should remain a hypothesis

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ApK

My point was only that Amazon does not police or vet every copyright claim on every work sold there. Likely THEY would "let" you (try to) sell it until some one noticed and complained to them.
If that someone happened to be a motivated prosecutor, you might have a bigger problem.

The only person I know that had some books pulled was for a trademark not copyright violation.
Scholastic takes their "Choose your own adventure" very seriously.

As per copyright violations, I do know of one (insert word of your choice here) that was selling newer books under a different name and those books got pulled in a hurry.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

As per copyright violations, I do know of one (insert word of your choice here) that was selling newer books under a different name and those books got pulled in a hurry.

Certainly Amazon will take action in the event of a copyright violation. That's rather different, though, to including an invalid copyright notice in a book. People can just laugh at it and nobody is harmed.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

In science terms, until you have a test to experimentally prove it then it should remain a hypothesis

I believe the actual criteria is "when the math is good enough to get you a grant...."

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by John F

Since the emphasis is on my post, I'll clarify my assumption: Amazon would not sell it because it would be a clear violation of the law, and their lawers would advise them against breaking the law, or doing something that may possibly get them into legal trouble. IMO.

Some of my examples above are a clear violation but the clearer it is the less likely to mislead and so be of any legal importance.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

In science terms, until you have a test to experimentally prove it then it should remain a hypothesis

Just to remind you, the standard scientific philosophy is that theories can only be disproved, never proved.

And in actual practice theories are not discarded until a better theory is available and even then the old theories may be used if they are easier to calculate with (as Newton).