How is the law of gravity not an existential claim? It claims that that law is valid for all points in spacetime. Have you checked the law at every point in spacetime? I haven't, but in the ones I have checked it in, the law applies.
How does one define a "failed star"? once we have established that, we can decide whether Jupiter meets those criteia. It's really disappointing that these ultra-simplistic questions get posited, and they only serve to re-enforce my belief that the scientific method is not being taught in ninth grade like it should be.
First we would have to agree on what an Angel was, and how one would confirm the observation of an angel, so no, that's not a testable hypothesis, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, return to high school science, pay attention this time when they discuss the scientific method.
Yeah, "theoretically testable" is a better term than "testable", though I think "falsifiable" is probably the most accurate word. Unfortunately, it seems like any time I use that word I have to define it for whoever I'm speaking with.
Global Warming is testable, just like gravity, the problem is that the mathematical model is much more complex, requires much more detailed inputs and our current models aren't as accurate as we like, and it takes longer to verify results.
There's nothing preventing you from walking from Boston to London other than your unwillingness to do so and (probably, but who knows, you might own one) lack of a submersible suit that could withstand the pressure on the ocean floor. What is it with anti-science people and their inability to tell the difference between "things that can't be done" and "things I don't want to do"?
Macro-evolution is the development of new species.
Species don't actually exist, they're simply a way that we categorize different population groups with similar genes.
Micro-evolution is the development of new gene expressions.
We generally disambiguate species by their ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution that has occurred enough times to prevent members of one group from interbreeding with members of a different group descended from the same original gene pool.
Wow you're dumb. Mathematical models are how we describe the world around us. Gravity is described by a mathematical model, and simply changing the model in my textbook isn't going to change gravity on the planet. We're not 'wagging the dog by the tail' and bending the universe to our will when we use the Ideal Gas model to describe the behavior of gasses, we're using a model that was developed through observation to predict outcomes. It's disturbing that you would have a poor enough understanding of the universe to believe otherwise.
Again, the ease or difficulty of said search has no bearing on the falsifiability of the claim. It doesn't matter that we haven't checked the gravity on every planet in the universe, the laws of gravity are still falsifiable, and if we find one planet that they don't apply to, we need to re-evaluate the law at that point.
That's a falsifiable law. Demonstrate a situation in which a force is exerted, yet there is no equal and opposite reaction (it only takes one example), and you've falsified the claim. It's science.
You're missing the point of science. It is not necessary that everyone on earth be able to understand a concept for it to be science, just that it makes falsifiable claims. If you accept the point of view of the article, science doesn't exist, because any time anyone can't understand a concept it moves into the realm of faith. That's stupid. You could choose to spend 7 years getting your doctorate in physics, at which point you would be able to test their hypotheses, the fact that you choose not to has no bearing on the falsifiability of a scientific claim. No amount of education or explanation can make a religious claim falsifiable, which is why it's not science.
See, this is the kind of shit I'm talking about. You're confusing "factual correctness" with the "scientific method". The factual correctness of a hypothesis has nothing to do with whether or not it's science, how the hypothesis is presented, and it's falsifiability is what makes it science rather than faith.
If an idea is not falsifiable, it is by definition not science.
The Big Bang is testable through mathematical models. They may or may not be accurate, but we can extrapolate based upon how the universe currently operates and its laws how it began, and make adjustments to the model to compensate for newly discovered knowledge. This stands in stark contrast to the non-science, faith based "god made it, bible says so."
Wow, evolve a mouse into an elephant. Really? Your understanding of evolutionary theory is so fucking terrible that you think that evolution occurs on individual animals, rather than entire populations over time? Again, that's a sad testament to the terrible quality of your education. I'd suggest reading a bit of this http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm for examples of how the theory of evolution is tested, and perhaps re-taking high school biology at a decent school.
Recreate the moon? What the fuck? What are you even saying here? Do you dispute the scientific accuracy of the moon's existence?
woah, it gets crazier..., I'll stop answering you point by point.
That which is not reproducible or testable is not science. Simply because you choose not to (or can't) learn the complex math necessary to validate a theorem, or even accuratley critique it, doesn't mean it's not a testable hypothesis. Simply because you choose not to re-produce an experiment does not mean it's not testable, or not reproducable, it just means that you don't have the means or desire to do so. There is nothing faith based about peer-review or re-creating experiments, I really don't understand how you could develop such a bad understanding of the scientific method to think so.
It really is a sad testament to the state of education in this country that so many people have such difficulty understanding the basics foundation of the scientific method.
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Actually, those jokes date back to WW2. We didn't make any jokes after WW1 out of gratitude for the revolutionary help. The second time we had to come back and bail you guys out, we started making jokes.
Taking it and modifying it to try out new ideas generally voids your warranty, which most people aren't willing to do to a several hundred dollar piece of equipment.
I've got an even better idea! Instead of a big bulky tablet, they should make them about half as big, so that it could fit into your pocket, and add some kind of radio to it so that I could send and recieve data! Maybe you could even hook in some kind of VOIP service to it to allow for voice communication with other people who carried around similar devices, like a walkie talkie!
There aren't really that many cheap crap android phones out there though, and the 'flagship phones' of several carriers are pretty damn awesome android phones.
Sprint's HTC EVO is a great piece of hardware, the Motorola droid series have been really popular.
I think the fact that the Nexus series (The Android reference device) phones are decent pieces of hardware, and available for a reasonable price on any carrier sets the bar for entry into the market high enough to keep most of the real crap from ever seeing the light of day and ruining Android users experience.
You'll regret that you didn't stand up for your WOW addict friends when the internet police get finished with them and decide to come after your goat porn next.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not, all of the models that aren't heavily contested suggest that it's a 4-sphere.
How is the law of gravity not an existential claim? It claims that that law is valid for all points in spacetime. Have you checked the law at every point in spacetime? I haven't, but in the ones I have checked it in, the law applies.
How does one define a "failed star"? once we have established that, we can decide whether Jupiter meets those criteia. It's really disappointing that these ultra-simplistic questions get posited, and they only serve to re-enforce my belief that the scientific method is not being taught in ninth grade like it should be.
First we would have to agree on what an Angel was, and how one would confirm the observation of an angel, so no, that's not a testable hypothesis, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, return to high school science, pay attention this time when they discuss the scientific method.
Yeah, "theoretically testable" is a better term than "testable", though I think "falsifiable" is probably the most accurate word. Unfortunately, it seems like any time I use that word I have to define it for whoever I'm speaking with.
Global Warming is testable, just like gravity, the problem is that the mathematical model is much more complex, requires much more detailed inputs and our current models aren't as accurate as we like, and it takes longer to verify results.
Macro-evolution is the development of new species.
Species don't actually exist, they're simply a way that we categorize different population groups with similar genes.
Micro-evolution is the development of new gene expressions.
We generally disambiguate species by their ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution that has occurred enough times to prevent members of one group from interbreeding with members of a different group descended from the same original gene pool.
Wow you're dumb. Mathematical models are how we describe the world around us. Gravity is described by a mathematical model, and simply changing the model in my textbook isn't going to change gravity on the planet. We're not 'wagging the dog by the tail' and bending the universe to our will when we use the Ideal Gas model to describe the behavior of gasses, we're using a model that was developed through observation to predict outcomes. It's disturbing that you would have a poor enough understanding of the universe to believe otherwise.
Again, the ease or difficulty of said search has no bearing on the falsifiability of the claim. It doesn't matter that we haven't checked the gravity on every planet in the universe, the laws of gravity are still falsifiable, and if we find one planet that they don't apply to, we need to re-evaluate the law at that point.
That's a falsifiable law. Demonstrate a situation in which a force is exerted, yet there is no equal and opposite reaction (it only takes one example), and you've falsified the claim. It's science.
You're missing the point of science. It is not necessary that everyone on earth be able to understand a concept for it to be science, just that it makes falsifiable claims. If you accept the point of view of the article, science doesn't exist, because any time anyone can't understand a concept it moves into the realm of faith. That's stupid. You could choose to spend 7 years getting your doctorate in physics, at which point you would be able to test their hypotheses, the fact that you choose not to has no bearing on the falsifiability of a scientific claim. No amount of education or explanation can make a religious claim falsifiable, which is why it's not science.
1. Develop your hypothesis. "Global warming happens according to this mathematical model"
2. Gather Data. "The inputs to my mathematical model are X, Y, and Z"
3. Make Predictions. "Based upon the inputs, and my mathematical model, we should expect to see: EXPECTED_OUTCOME"
4. Gather Data. "The actual data we gathered was :ACTUAL_OUTCOME"
5. Compare EXPECTED_OUTCOME to ACTUAL_OUTCOME.
6. Refine your model and repeat until your mathematical model predicts the actual outcome with some degree of accuracy.
Why is this so hard of a concept for so many people to understand :(
Yeah, my bad, I should have said "science" and "not science" rather than "sicence" and "religion".
If an idea is not falsifiable, it is by definition not science.
That which is not reproducible or testable is not science. Simply because you choose not to (or can't) learn the complex math necessary to validate a theorem, or even accuratley critique it, doesn't mean it's not a testable hypothesis. Simply because you choose not to re-produce an experiment does not mean it's not testable, or not reproducable, it just means that you don't have the means or desire to do so. There is nothing faith based about peer-review or re-creating experiments, I really don't understand how you could develop such a bad understanding of the scientific method to think so.
Actually, i think the US has surrendered to ignorance. Fear is just a byproduct of ignorance.
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Just look at the most recent batch of idiots we elected, the first thing they've attacked is the education system, because they're real 'mericans!
Actually, those jokes date back to WW2. We didn't make any jokes after WW1 out of gratitude for the revolutionary help. The second time we had to come back and bail you guys out, we started making jokes.
Then you're on the wrong internet.
Taking it and modifying it to try out new ideas generally voids your warranty, which most people aren't willing to do to a several hundred dollar piece of equipment.
Letting people choose how they want to live their own lives? Not in my America!
I've got an even better idea! Instead of a big bulky tablet, they should make them about half as big, so that it could fit into your pocket, and add some kind of radio to it so that I could send and recieve data! Maybe you could even hook in some kind of VOIP service to it to allow for voice communication with other people who carried around similar devices, like a walkie talkie!
There aren't really that many cheap crap android phones out there though, and the 'flagship phones' of several carriers are pretty damn awesome android phones. Sprint's HTC EVO is a great piece of hardware, the Motorola droid series have been really popular. I think the fact that the Nexus series (The Android reference device) phones are decent pieces of hardware, and available for a reasonable price on any carrier sets the bar for entry into the market high enough to keep most of the real crap from ever seeing the light of day and ruining Android users experience.
You'll regret that you didn't stand up for your WOW addict friends when the internet police get finished with them and decide to come after your goat porn next.