If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science World Report)   Scientists discover that men are from Mars, women are from planet Oh God Why Are You Still Talking, Sweet Jesus Do You Ever Get to the Point   (scienceworldreport.com) divider line 553
    More: Interesting, get to the point, The Journal of Neuroscience, scientists  
•       •       •

13479 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 3:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



553 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 01:18:54 AM  

Gawdzila: If your measurement directly contradicts my theory's prediction, and your measurement can be repeated by others and confirmed to not simply be a bad measurement by you... then yes. Absolutely. The theory is wrong. That's the end of it.


Sigh. All you science noobs around here.

"Theory" means an established observation supported by extensive evidence and accepted independently by many scientists.
"Hypothesis" sounds more like what you're talking about, which is a prediction to be tested (usually structured in such a way that you assume the opposite what you think you may find).

Theories are just tools...there are many theories that are technically "wrong" but are still very useful. For example, Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in the sense that it is a parametrized instantiation of generalized relativity. However, Newtonian mechanics is extremely accurate on the size and speed scales of everyday objects and upwards of maybe solar systems. It is also much simpler to use than relativity when measuring everyday objects, say the velocity of a car.

Another example is that although genetics as a science supersedes botany as being more "correct", botany is still useful because it is MUCH MUCH simpler and easier to explain the parts of a plant with botany than by reading the plant's DNA and puzzling out what it should look like by the genetic network interactions.

Theories are just different tools for different purposes. Flat-head screwdriver vs Philips screwdriver. Yeah, Philips screws might be easier to screw in but you'd be a dumbass to try and screw one in with a flat-head.
 
2013-02-23 03:10:39 AM  

torusXL: Gawdzila: If your measurement directly contradicts my theory's prediction, and your measurement can be repeated by others and confirmed to not simply be a bad measurement by you... then yes. Absolutely. The theory is wrong. That's the end of it.

Sigh. All you science noobs around here.

"Theory" means an established observation supported by extensive evidence and accepted independently by many scientists.
"Hypothesis" sounds more like what you're talking about, which is a prediction to be tested (usually structured in such a way that you assume the opposite what you think you may find).

Theories are just tools...there are many theories that are technically "wrong" but are still very useful. For example, Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in the sense that it is a parametrized instantiation of generalized relativity. However, Newtonian mechanics is extremely accurate on the size and speed scales of everyday objects and upwards of maybe solar systems. It is also much simpler to use than relativity when measuring everyday objects, say the velocity of a car.

Another example is that although genetics as a science supersedes botany as being more "correct", botany is still useful because it is MUCH MUCH simpler and easier to explain the parts of a plant with botany than by reading the plant's DNA and puzzling out what it should look like by the genetic network interactions.

Theories are just different tools for different purposes. Flat-head screwdriver vs Philips screwdriver. Yeah, Philips screws might be easier to screw in but you'd be a dumbass to try and screw one in with a flat-head.


Uh, no.  If a valid and reproducible experimentation or observation contradicts a theory, the theory is wrong. It may require a modification to the theory, or for the theory to be tossed entirely.  For example, first the Earth was the center of the universe, but observation showed that couldn't be true.  This resulted the Earth-centric theory being tossed entirely and in the theory that the planets rotated around the sun in a perfect circle to be the established theory.  This almost worked, but retrograde (planets moving backwards) made that problematic.  Attempts at explaining this with each planet moving in small circles inside of it's larger Sun orbiting circle became more and more complex as measurements became more refined.  Finally, a modification of the circle theory to an elliptical orbit explained it perfect.  Oops, no it didn't.  There were still minor fluxuations that didn't fit this theory.  Until someone put forth the theory that gravitational attraction from other heavenly bodies affected each other.

So we have a theory completely disproved and tossed (not without major resistance).  Then the new theory modified in a major way.  Then modified again in a minor way.
 
2013-02-23 05:26:17 AM  

KiltedBastich: what you are doing is making a non sequitor argument


I don`t think this sentence is being understood. Try using different words.

OgreMagi: PsiChick: So if I can disprove your physics theory once, is that the end of it?

Yes, assuming the experiment that disproves a theory can be reproduced.  That's the difference between real science and pseudo-science.


And this is why the climate change threads have been so heated. The warmers know that the deniers just have to disprove the theory once but the warmers have to be right every time.
 
Displayed 3 of 553 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report