Viewing profile — tdehnel

It's a given that we'll have some elections deniers this year, and some people won't trust the results regardless. But it would be useful to educate the average person on why that …

They said the science was bad, not the summary. If you’re curious, the reason the science is bad because it’s explanationless

Utterly terrible argument. You could just as easily claim social media or touchscreens or episodes of Modern Family or literally anything else has lead to this increase.

This could be an argument for anything, so it is a bad argument.

> film was designed for optimal rendering of light skin Utter nonsense. Shadow contrast is lower with darker skin. It’s physics, no matter how much you want to see racism.

So it could very well be more than half.

so your theory is “things have predictable patterns” or “the future will be like the past”

yes, that is one good example

i see what you mean, i suppose my concept of “explanation” could be closer to what you mean by theory

> Thinking that something will either happen or not happen if I mix those two substances is not a theory. OK I'll bite. What is it then?

There are practically infinite combinations of things to mess around with. Which stuff do scientists choose to mess around with and why?

Why would someone do an experiment without a theory to test? How would they know that a particular result was interesting without a theory about the expected result?

You can't even observe something without theories. For example: - I need to observe here and not anywhere else - I can reliably interpret my senses/the instrumentation is working c…

I wouldn't disparage that method of discovery at all. But some of the theories required to do it are: - Many brute-force combinations of these specific organic molecules will yield…

“That’s funny…” implies you had a pre existing theory about how it was supposed to work.

Which properties to check? Why that sample and not countless others? Why not spend the rest of his life checking different properties of the one sample?

Can you tell me why a scientist would decide to do a certain experiment without a theory about what to test and why? Why that experiment and not any of infinite others?

The “oh this sticks” part is only ever interesting precisely because it doesn’t conform to the pre existing theory. You cannot even make an observation without theories baked in: -…

Calling theories useful if they predict future events is called Instrumentalism and it’s a dead end if your goal is to understand reality. “The magician will pull a rabbit from the…

To consider an observation “weird” you need a theory about what a normal observation looks like. Additionally, all observations require baked in theories about the observation bein…

The pre-existing theory Newton needed was “things move when other things act on them.” Without that, the observation would be meaningless. Seeing the apple fall told Newton “some u…

Not possible. Theory comes first. Scientists need a theory first to know which experiments to do. Any interesting experimental results are interesting precisely because they do not…

That is a logically different scenario from a government employee (acting in their official capacity) infringing the rights of a private citizen.

Wow what a jerk. I'm going off the Constitutional Oath, which all judges take. Obviously they use judicial discretion but be charitable for a second and at least try to understand …