3 ms·
Not to be rude, but did you read the fking article? What your are describing is pseudoscience. It is entirely possible to use your random, naive, and quasi-acc
by phren0logy 16y ago
Not to be rude, but did you read the fking article?
What your are describing is pseudoscience. It is entirely possible to use your random, naive, and quasi-accurate observations to generate a hypothesis. To come to your "simple answer" is the type of overly simplistic thinking that Feynman is criticizing.
"Science: It works, bitches." -- xkcd
- rbanffy 16y agoActually, you discarding his hypothesis without testing is the kind of thinking Feynman is criticizing. He has a hypothesis. Let's try to break it. If we fail, good for him ;-)
- nazgulnarsil 16y agoyeah, I don't normally talk about nutrition because I don't want to get into a huge debate over edge cases that everyone seems to love (oh look it happened in this thread too). in an absence of empirical data we have to use deduction or induction to arrive at a reasonable hypothesis that we then test. I recommend good calories, bad calories.