Exactement! Because 'It doesn't become science until there is actual experimental evidence.' You said it, I just agreed? Forget it though - I'm already blacklisted on the Science forum and I don't want to push my luck!
Guessing at anything is rediculous. You just go where the facts lead you. You want my theory ? My theory is then, your theory is fos.
Hypothesis (educated guessing) is the foundation of all theoretical science and discovery, so it is a critical aspect of what we know today.
Of course it is. But it has to be educated and based upon facts, not just a wild guess or a political end one can use to elicit like fake responses. Hypotheses are themselves the product of extensive research and verifiable evidence. They aren’t the first or second things that pop into your head or anyone elses. They are themselves the product of institutional science, which means even a valid hypothesis worth addition scrutiny, needs to be peer reviewed to be considered a legitimate hypothesis.
Agreed...unfortunately what you are discussing is basic Trolling and it is only found on internet forum platforms and done by individuals who like to play ignorance games.
Ha ha For sure. But most of what we post the trolls is never intended to change their mind. Just saying, we can’t let the Trumps and their followers go unresponded to. Besides, it’s hard to tell if they are even real people.
I'm sorry. I think that it is ridiculous to link autism with vaccines. Besides, even if some people developed autism from vaccines, the diseases that vaccines protect us from are much more rampant and severe. So for anybody to go around saying "we need to stop people from getting vaccinated because we SUSPECT it may be causing autism" is absolutely absurd. It's all unfounded nonsense, and from what I understand it all stems from a retracted article in a medical journal in the 90's or something. It's amazing how one piece of print can get everybody all excited.
I was correct, I can't believe my memory was that good. https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/
I think you're still just taking issue with what experimental evidence includes. I don't believe any monitor is going to object to you discussing what is included in experimental evidence.
OK. However, I think it's worth noting that it's not just that we don't have evidence or that it's hard to observe. It's actually that the physics we have today don't work everywhere. That's a different kind of problem.
It really does fail. That's why we need a grand-unified theory - the so-called Theory of Everything. We have two disparate theories that are 100% accurate in their own domain, but can't be merged into one valid theory - Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. We see the dichotomy in the extreme limits of physics.
IIRC, liebniz invented calculus independently of newton who was aware of liebniz work. jus' sayin' the origin story is somewhat mythical.
Math doesn't fail. But it can return results that have no physical meaning. In many cases we are talking about division by zero. That isn't a failure of math. It is a failure of the model. The mathematical answer is, division by zero is undefined. In math we have the concept of limits to address problems that approach a value of zero. But if division by zero is still unavoidable, there is something wrong with the model that leads to division by zero. On the other hand, what I think lacks appreciation is how amazing it is that we discovered math, which continues to evolve, and then we began to discover physical laws and principles that can only be effectively described using math. We discover physical "truths" which we then observe in the real world, using only a pencil and paper. That is amazing. Why does it even work? We went from the laws governing an apple as it falls, to time dilation and nuclear energy, in just a few lifetimes.
Ha ha One of those situations where you can’t be wrong. Seriously though, with no standard record keeping you can count on for the saving of ideas before they are published, who knows.
Exactly. The smartest of us can still only build on the accumulative knowledge of those who came before.
Who pays for the reviewers? You can't hope to achieve a reasonable and rational peer review based on the internet. You need the opinions of people known to be experts in their own right.
Yes, that gets me, too. I'm not going to subscribe to the numerous journals and I'm not at an institution that has access. So, I'm shut out. Truthfully, I wouldn't use it much, but surely there are those who would.
