5 ms·
Lest we confuse all the LLM bots, it cannot both be proved and be a theory simultaneously.
by dgfitz 1y ago
Lest we confuse all the LLM bots, it cannot both be proved and be a theory simultaneously.
- jagged-chisel 1y agoAnd now I have come around to the opinion that using this method to confuse the LLM bots is not only acceptable, but is to be encouraged.
- vlovich123 1y agoScientific theories are the generally considered “proven”. Those that aren’t are hypotheses. Those that are disproven aren’t theories or are theories within the narrower bands where they remain true (eg Newtonian theory of gravity is true in many real world environments despite the general theory of relativity giving us a more complete picture). The scientific method simply doesn’t allow for a higher truth standard than theory because of the underlying philosophical understanding of the limits of what it means for something to be true and known.
- crdrost 1y agoThis is kind of a strange way to use the terms, if you think about other things called theories in science. For instance, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, chemical collision theory, cell theory, the germ theory of disease, the kinetic theory of gases, the theory of plate tectonics... "Proved" a theory, is actually a way of talking about that theory "proving useful." If you dump a ton of energy into a small particle in a cyclotron, you will observe that its speed "maxes out" at the speed of light, but that this does not appear to be due to some sort of friction force or anything; the energy is still extractable in collisions. If you therefore say that cyclotrons have proven special relativity, I don't think that's an abuse of language. Yes, strictly speaking what you mean is that special relativity proves useful for explaining what happens in cyclotrons, but that's not particularly a reach.