3 ms·
It's almost as if they are saying that their 'real physics' isn't science, because in real science observation is first and foremost. I'm really looking forwar
by ganzuul 6y ago
It's almost as if they are saying that their 'real physics' isn't science, because in real science observation is first and foremost.
I'm really looking forward to what XFEL can do for material science. Perhaps we can finally replace plastics with something like eutectic systems, bulk metallic glass, or the classic transparent aluminum.
- akvadrako 6y agoActually in real science theory is first, observation comes later as a way to judge competing theories. This is because all observations are theory-laden. They don’t tell you anything without a framework to interpret them in.
- Learning2-2 6y agoIsn't this an idealization myth of the scientific method? I'm pretty sure some kind of observation prior to forming the theory will account for many theories.
- __Joker 6y agoTrue that. It is like cat and mouse. You present a theory and validation and usefulness will come from experimental verification. And some theory comes from unexplainable observations. Michelson–Morley experiment and special theory of relativity will be taking the second path.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoIn a lot of situations, the observation is that the current favorite theory doesn't work for some observation, but the new theory explaining it only comes much later.
- ganzuul 6y agoI disagree because we don't entertain theories which make no testable predictions. It seems logical that this rule makes observation the ultimate qualifier.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoYeah, as long as there's no experimental confirmation, it's metaphysics, which is a sub-branch of philosophy, not science. (And it doesn't matter how refined their mathematics are...)