2 ms·
> Because if inferences and deduction where enough people wouldn’t bother with experiments. Yet humans do, well beyond experimental evidence. Notably theoretic
by Supermancho 3y ago
> Because if inferences and deduction where enough people wouldn’t bother with experiments.
Yet humans do, well beyond experimental evidence. Notably theoretical insert science. This is not directly relevant, but interesting to think about. I really appreciated Feynman's distinction between Physics and Mathematics.
We don't know if humans become addicted to alcohol due to ingestion or genetic predisposition, as it could be invisible fairies that live in the subatomic spaces of alcohol picking their favorites.
Suffice to say, what you and I are arguing for is no more truth than any other model of reality that provides the same answers. I don't see why requiring more specific experimental evidence is more scientific.
- Retric 3y ago> I don’t see why requiring more specific experimental evidence is more scientific. Even if you don’t understand why there’s plenty of examples showing this is how “theoretical sciences” operate. Prior to discovering the Higgs Boson the underlying verbiage was all some variation on “we don’t know, but…” Only after the experiment is that default changed. The Higgs is a great example because there were several competing theories suggesting various energies for the particle most of which failed when actual data showed up. Which you always get for such open questions, thus the lack of consensus and the default “we don’t know.”