3 ms·
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
by anotherhacker 10y ago
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 rely on empirical observation.
Go home.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoWhat? You've been talking about (a) whether GR needs empirical observation, (b) whether things are true whether people admit them or not (i.e. Objective reality) and (c) mathematical proofs being evidence of absolute truths. Those were my three paragraphs. 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.