271–280 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like going to a book club without having read the book. You miss all nuance. It's becomes very quickly apparent to those who've read the article when others comment without having read beyond the title.
Youre wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we can measure gravity in faraway galaxies. We don't need to actually go there, we have telescopes :)
How can you measure the strength of the gravitational constant if you don't know the masses of the objects in question?
Since these operate in concert across the observable universe, and themselves involve various other interactions (elements, strong and week nuclear forces, gravity, speed of light, rates of hydrogen fusion, etc.), we can conclude that either there is no appreciable change in any of the underlying fundamental constants or that change occurs in a compensated fashion such that no net change is detectable.
The second fails Occam's Razor. The conclusion that the laws of physics appear to be similar throughout observable space seems robust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean DDT? Anyway, beyond the 'philosophy of science' issue of whether you can prove something, there is good affirmative evidence that existing GMOs are safe for numerous reasons. First, there's no mechanistic reason to think they would be dangerous. T-DNAs are not somehow magically toxic to humans; everything you eat is riddled with millennia of t-dnas, old viruses, transposon blooms, etc. etc. The technologi…
> First, there's no mechanistic reason to think they would be dangerous. That's like saying "there's no reason to think peanuts would be dangerous" since humans eat them all the time. And yet, they are deadly to some humans. No one knows why. But they do know that food allergies are far more prevalent in the U.S. than in other countries. And now, suddenly, people in Africa and China are starting to exhibit food aller…
Do you have some references?
In case it's not clear, I'd like to read articles about food allergies that have been common in USA for some time now becoming common in countries that are coming out of 2nd world status and into 1st world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contents of the article are the only thing that ever matters. The title is picked by editors to get the most people to click on it.
I think the title is all that matters. I'm only here for the discussion, and the title defines the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your approach will lead you to having an incorrect take quite often. You should reconsider unless you enjoy being wrong for no particular reason.
Well it hasnt, and Ive had this "approach" for years.
I'm a physician and I've been suggesting this to my colleagues for a few years, only to be met with alienated stares and labeled cynical. The doctors and doctors-in-training I work with have altruistic motives, but place too much stock in major medical studies. They also frequently apply single-study findings to patient care, even to patients that would've been excluded from that study (saw this a lot with the recent…
Please, start.
I'm very interested and will read what you write with full attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting points. I still disagree, or perhaps I'm not doing a good job explaining. My point is this: Something is true whether one accepts it or not. E.g. the earth was proven to be round before anyone actually went around it. Another example is climate change deniers. To them there's no proof of; 1) Climate change; 2) That it's man made. Another example is people who believe the earth is 10,000 years old (I'm not…
Epistemical simplicity is one of the things I love about math, but it's hard to extend it wholesale to physics. GR will almost certainly be proved wrong some day, at least in some regime (Einstein was ironically one of the first to feel it needed something more, as an alternative to the inelegant cosmological constant). If GR had been mathematically proven, this would be terrible, as it would prove our mathematics ar…
It seems you're more interested in dicing up and attacking what I said, instead of what I mean.
I'll re-articulate it for you once more: We don't have a way to mathematically prove a drug for depression or to explain psychological phenomena. The studies in the article are talking about those which rely on empirical observation.
Go home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epistemical simplicity is one of the things I love about math, but it's hard to extend it wholesale to physics. GR will almost certainly be proved wrong some day, at least in some regime (Einstein was ironically one of the first to feel it needed something more, as an alternative to the inelegant cosmological constant). If GR had been mathematically proven, this would be terrible, as it would prove our mathematics ar…
You've totally lost sight of the issue at hand. Now you're talking about things utterly unrelated to this discussion. It seems you're more interested in dicing up and attacking what I said, instead of what I mean. I'll re-articulate it for you once more: We don't have a way to mathematically prove a drug for depression or to explain psychological phenomena. The studies in the article are talking about those which rel…
How many problems have you worked through in GR? Have you gone through the proofs that GR recreates Newtonian gravity in the low-energy limit? If not, don't go around talking about how Einstein proved GR was a true description of reality with naught but mathematical proof when he didn't think he did that.
Physics has the same requirements for empiric evidence as the life sciences, it's just that we work within regimes where we can apply fundamental, empirically validated mathematical theories directly. If you don't believe me, go ask another physicist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The very title claims that unrepeated results shouldn't be accepted .
The contents of the article are the only thing that ever matters. The title is picked by editors to get the most people to click on it.