141–150 of 189 posts
When i could "see" my visual blindspot. https://lasikofnv.com/try-these-3-fun-tests-to-find-your-vis... .
Wow... just... mind blown. I always read about it, but never experienced it... wow...
A gallon of gasoline creates 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. So my trip to the grocery store could be adding as much carbon dioxide to the air as the groceries I pick up!
I use that as a way to visualize the problem with "a solution".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but that's proof of the wave nature of light, not quite of the quantum nature.
Let's try to work the problem in a way that avoids pedantry, just for a moment. This is one of my favorite PBS clips from the 80's in which Richard Feynman explains how strange the nature of light and by extension all of electromagnetic radiation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjHJ7FmV0M4 If you listen carefully, you notice that he never talks about wave/particle duality (because he wasn't giving a classroom lectur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, of course, Popperian falsifiability is itself unfalsafiable, and therefore does not meet its own definition as a member of itself. Popper knew this, by the way. So the inverse to the trap you point out here is the claims that "if not falsifiable, then unable to be true/useful", which is just as specious.
Aha! Now that's why some people say that science is a religion, too.
How prion diseases work and spread. They're basically infectious lego. You may not thank me if you read about them...
I read somewhere they survive even 1000°C cleaning of stuff. Maybe dental implements.
Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses - it disproves them. For this to work, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Most pseudoscience (and religion) makes non-falsifiable claims, meaning they are incompatible with scientific discourse. This simple observation is a powerful tool in any bullshit-detection kit. Once produced, a scientific hypothesis of any merit will be attacked vigorously with experiments until enough parties…
You're correct in the sense that this is what science is per Popperian definition. However, I would be careful to assume that many scientists are actually so busy refuting hypotheses. The Popperian ideal and the reality in science are two different things. To cite a paper I currently read: > "As Chalmers (1999) remarks, when we turn to history of science, the idea that falsificationism is actively undertaken borders…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aha! Now that's why some people say that science is a religion, too.
I always allow for the possibility that science is a faith (not religion) simply because there is no way to prove that the universe actually obeys laws that we can discover. Just because an apple fell down in the same way in each of a million experiments, it's not necessary that the relationship we discovered is a "law" that defines the universe. It could just as well be that the next time we try it, the apple falls…
For me it's material science misconceptions, corrections to what a kid / the over-simplified public conception are. As I'm not a material science expert, if I'm wrong or slightly incorrect please explain what actually happens. "diamonds are forever" It's appealing to believe that a crystalline structure, a pretty one too, might exist until actively changed. Diamonds are not forever. What 'blew my mind' is that diamon…
Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses - it disproves them. For this to work, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Most pseudoscience (and religion) makes non-falsifiable claims, meaning they are incompatible with scientific discourse. This simple observation is a powerful tool in any bullshit-detection kit. Once produced, a scientific hypothesis of any merit will be attacked vigorously with experiments until enough parties…
these days, we adopt models. discard them if they fail and start all over again. seems to be a better and more elegant way.