|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers.
Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
I would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case...
|
On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory.
There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology.
Whether an absolute truth exist depends on the approach you're using. You can't use math or materialistic fields to explain the placebo or nocebo effect. Yet, at least.
It's not saying it's supernatural for it to exist, it's saying that there's more to nature that isn't understood by using measuring instruments rather than subjectivity.
+ Show Spoiler +If you perceive a situation as you being under assault by unknown people and someone managed to turn it around and paint you as the problem from a remote location, you'd start asking yourself many questions about what kind of people are living around you if you never find out the reason.
What's the kind of subjectivity that helps one get through the challenges presented at a moment is more of a life skill than a science.
If you think people are suspiciously nice to you, maybe you should go out of your way to piss them all off and see what happens while they seem to hold back something. What's riskier? Playing along with unknown people seems pretty risky, in hindsight. Not reccommended, especially while the cops around you are plotting against you.
|
On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not?
You ignored my questions about all 4 of your previously mentioned hypotheses, and now you want my take on an outdated model of the universe's formation that has since been replaced by big bang cosmology? Okay, fine: No I don't believe in a steady state, and it's not a scientific theory either. It's the 5th hypothesis you've brought up, and it's one that's already been disproven. The Wiki on the steady-state model goes into some nice detail about how steady state vs. big bang used to be competing hypotheses until new data was discovered that ultimately refuted the former, supported the latter, and then the latter continued to gain more and more credibility with its explanatory and predictive powers, and even more evidence was uncovered, eventually reaching consensus as a proper scientific theory:
"From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang theory and supporters of the steady-state theory. The steady-state model is now rejected by most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers.[1] The observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
Also, your use of the phrase "theory of science" is not the same as a scientific theory like evolutionary, big bang, germ, atomic, gravitational, and plate tectonics. "Theory of science" is more akin to how we believe science / scientists should generally operate, which I agree with you includes things "that scientists actually do" (methodological naturalism and the scientific method/process come to mind). I think it's important for you to straighten out theory/hypothesis vs. scientific theory vs. mathematical theorem first though, before throwing out another similarly-sounding phrase like "theory of science".
|
On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. At the moment the most we are going to get is "a controversy flag", which is the weaselly way of doing this.
Yeah, I fear that things will only get worse in terms of tech literacy and the ability to research / vet things, with the assumption that accessible AI will always be correct.
On June 08 2026 20:33 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers. Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theoremI would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case...
This isn't my opinion, and I don't make the rules. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Full stop. If you don't understand why they need to be falsifiable, you can Google "why do scientific theories need to be falsifiable". You may not agree with those reasons, but the scientific community still values falsifiability.
When scientists are coming up with new ideas and proposing hypotheses, it may very well be the case that not all the criteria are immediately met yet for the eventual status of a scientific theory. Eventually, the supporters of that idea/hypothesis are going to need to figure out how it's falsifiable, how it accounts for all the current data in that space, how to collect more data, how to make predictions based on the idea/hypothesis, how to navigate peer-review, and everything else I just listed for you a few posts ago before the idea/hypothesis gets properly promoted to "scientific theory", which rarely happens anyway. You can propose anything you want, but if it never becomes falsifiable, then it's not going to become a scientific theory.
|
Conservatives are having their usual meltdown on social media because the demsoc candidate Nithya Raman passed the MAGAt candidate Spencer Pratt in the first round of the Los Angeles mayoral election count (incumbent Karen Bass is still in first place).
We should ban reporting preliminary results in election counts so people stop shitting their pants when the results change as the ballots are counted.
|
On June 08 2026 21:31 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory.
There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology.
Whether an absolute truth exist depends on the approach you're using. You can't use math or materialistic fields to explain the placebo or nocebo effect. Yet, at least. It's not saying it's supernatural for it to exist, it's saying that there's more to nature that isn't understood by using measuring instruments rather than subjectivity. + Show Spoiler +If you perceive a situation as you being under assault by unknown people and someone managed to turn it around and paint you as the problem from a remote location, you'd start asking yourself many questions about what kind of people are living around you if you never find out the reason. What's the kind of subjectivity that helps one get through the challenges presented at a moment is more of a life skill than a science.
We do have some understanding of the placebo effect, and how it relates to psychology and biology. It has to do with the subject's expectations, conditioning, and beliefs around the "treatment" that they think they're receiving. Certain areas of the brain (e.g., linked to mood) are also relevant, as are increases in dopamine and endorphins. I don't see how this pertains to the original topic though; no one is asserting that the placebo effect is 100% understood, or that it's a scientific theory, or that we need to use religious/supernatural explanations to better understand the placebo effect. When I said "Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory", I was just talking about the one example you asserted earlier, which is when you said that God declaring Let There Be Light is similar to big bang cosmology.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with your spoilered section.
|
On June 08 2026 19:42 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. Can they be correct by design? I mean, by this point it is pretty much concluded that with current approach there will always be hallucinations and errors as the LLMs are probabilistic in nature, right?
You can definitely ground their answers in the scientific literature. I do this all the time to prevent hallucinations.
|
On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? You ignored my questions about all 4 of your previously mentioned hypotheses, and now you want my take on an outdated model of the universe's formation that has since been replaced by big bang cosmology? Okay, fine: No I don't believe in a steady state, and it's not a scientific theory either. It's the 5th hypothesis you've brought up, and it's one that's already been disproven.
I didn't ask you if you believe in steady-state. I asked you if you believe that this theory is/was scientific.
And that's where we differ. Because I (and all physicists I know) believe Steady-state is/was scientific theory. It's just a really shitty one and one that was proven false long ago. Still, it has most of the markings of well defined theory. It made some predictions which was later tested and proven to be false.
And I am ignoring most of what You write because it is just bollocks. Your understanding of the topic being discussed is superficial at best.
On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? Also, your use of the phrase "theory of science" is not the same as a scientific theory like evolutionary, big bang, germ, atomic, gravitational, and plate tectonics. "Theory of science" is more akin to how we believe science / scientists should generally operate, which I agree with you includes things "that scientists actually do" (methodological naturalism and the scientific method/process come to mind). I think it's important for you to straighten out theory/hypothesis vs. scientific theory vs. mathematical theorem first though, before throwing out another similarly-sounding phrase like "theory of science".
Of course it is not the same.... Theory of science is a theory of how science is conducted as a human activity. How people produce scientific theories is one area of the theory of science...
On June 08 2026 22:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. At the moment the most we are going to get is "a controversy flag", which is the weaselly way of doing this. Yeah, I fear that things will only get worse in terms of tech literacy and the ability to research / vet things, with the assumption that accessible AI will always be correct. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 20:33 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers. Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theoremI would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case... This isn't my opinion, and I don't make the rules. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Full stop.
This is what I am trying to explain to You. In reality, many theories considered scientific are not really falsifiable. With string theory being the prime example.
|
On June 08 2026 14:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Do you guys work from home? This study www.science.org just came out. This is what they found: Show nested quote +Our results suggest that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone. Although a large body of research finds that workers want to work remotely, our findings suggest that workers may not realize the costs of remote work for their well-being, which may take time to accumulate. Understanding remote work’s impact on mental health is important for workers deciding where to work and for firms and governments setting remote-work policies. I personally have felt this way. I am more productive at home, but the feeling of being isolated definitely got to me in my previous job. Now, in my new job, we have a standing policy of no working from home at all which I initially resented strongly. Now, after a full year of being forced back in the office, I have to say I feel much happier about going to work, and appreciate more my interactions with my colleagues. I still get way more done at home, and take "sick" days to finish off grants and whatever at home, but I do see this impact. What's your experience?
I'm a pretty social person, and I'm very enthusiastic and energetic in the classroom (which I think students tend to appreciate). Remote teaching during covid made it harder for me to rally, because I was sitting down and not physically in the same space as my students. As a teacher, I think it's harder to maintain and share that same contagious passion if you're stuck at home. I was able to get more things done around the house and have more time to explore new hobbies during those days, but actually interacting with students in person is a core part of why I love my career. I don't know if my mental health seriously suffered during covid, but that study's results don't surprise me. I wonder if the data is similar even between people who identify as extroverted and people who identify as introverted.
|
On June 08 2026 22:34 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? You ignored my questions about all 4 of your previously mentioned hypotheses, and now you want my take on an outdated model of the universe's formation that has since been replaced by big bang cosmology? Okay, fine: No I don't believe in a steady state, and it's not a scientific theory either. It's the 5th hypothesis you've brought up, and it's one that's already been disproven. I didn't ask you if you believe in steady-state. I asked you if you believe that this theory is/was scientific. And that's where we differ. Because I (and all physicists I know) believe Steady-state is/was scientific theory. It's just a really shitty one and one that was proven false long ago. Still, it has most of the markings of well defined theory. It made some predictions which was later tested and proven to be false. And I am ignoring most of what You write because it is just bollocks. Your understanding of the topic being discussed is superficial at best. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? Also, your use of the phrase "theory of science" is not the same as a scientific theory like evolutionary, big bang, germ, atomic, gravitational, and plate tectonics. "Theory of science" is more akin to how we believe science / scientists should generally operate, which I agree with you includes things "that scientists actually do" (methodological naturalism and the scientific method/process come to mind). I think it's important for you to straighten out theory/hypothesis vs. scientific theory vs. mathematical theorem first though, before throwing out another similarly-sounding phrase like "theory of science". Of course it is not the same.... Theory of science is a theory of how science is conducted as a human activity. How people produce scientific theories is one area of the theory of science... Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 22:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. At the moment the most we are going to get is "a controversy flag", which is the weaselly way of doing this. Yeah, I fear that things will only get worse in terms of tech literacy and the ability to research / vet things, with the assumption that accessible AI will always be correct. On June 08 2026 20:33 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers. Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theoremI would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case... This isn't my opinion, and I don't make the rules. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Full stop. This is what I am trying to explain to You. In reality, many theories considered scientific are not really falsifiable. With string theory being the prime example.
There's not much else to say here. I think we're just going around in circles at this point.
A scientific theory isn't just a colloquial theory proposed by a scientist, nor is it a hypothesis that has gained a little traction.
Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. The five hypotheses you mentioned are not scientific theories, nor were you even able to explain why you thought any of them had achieved the status of scientific theory after I had asked you.
If a scientific model/explanation has already been disproven and the peer-reviewed consensus is that it's false, then it is obviously not a scientific theory.
You also omitted my sources and explanations as to why you're wrong about steady-state. Here they are again:
The Wiki on the steady-state model goes into some nice detail about how steady state vs. big bang used to be competing hypotheses until new data was discovered that ultimately refuted the former, supported the latter, and then the latter continued to gain more and more credibility with its explanatory and predictive powers, and even more evidence was uncovered, eventually reaching consensus as a proper scientific theory:
"From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang theory and supporters of the steady-state theory. The steady-state model is now rejected by most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers.[1] The observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
The rest I'm not going to repeat or re-cite over and over again; I'm going to move on from this discussion.
|
On June 08 2026 22:34 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? You ignored my questions about all 4 of your previously mentioned hypotheses, and now you want my take on an outdated model of the universe's formation that has since been replaced by big bang cosmology? Okay, fine: No I don't believe in a steady state, and it's not a scientific theory either. It's the 5th hypothesis you've brought up, and it's one that's already been disproven. I didn't ask you if you believe in steady-state. I asked you if you believe that this theory is/was scientific. And that's where we differ. Because I (and all physicists I know) believe Steady-state is/was scientific theory. It's just a really shitty one and one that was proven false long ago. Still, it has most of the markings of well defined theory. It made some predictions which was later tested and proven to be false. And I am ignoring most of what You write because it is just bollocks. Your understanding of the topic being discussed is superficial at best. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? Also, your use of the phrase "theory of science" is not the same as a scientific theory like evolutionary, big bang, germ, atomic, gravitational, and plate tectonics. "Theory of science" is more akin to how we believe science / scientists should generally operate, which I agree with you includes things "that scientists actually do" (methodological naturalism and the scientific method/process come to mind). I think it's important for you to straighten out theory/hypothesis vs. scientific theory vs. mathematical theorem first though, before throwing out another similarly-sounding phrase like "theory of science". Of course it is not the same.... Theory of science is a theory of how science is conducted as a human activity. How people produce scientific theories is one area of the theory of science... Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 22:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. At the moment the most we are going to get is "a controversy flag", which is the weaselly way of doing this. Yeah, I fear that things will only get worse in terms of tech literacy and the ability to research / vet things, with the assumption that accessible AI will always be correct. On June 08 2026 20:33 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers. Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theoremI would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case... This isn't my opinion, and I don't make the rules. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Full stop. This is what I am trying to explain to You. In reality, many theories considered scientific are not really falsifiable. With string theory being the prime example.
While DPB is trivially right that a scientific theory isn't just a "hypothesis," it's not simply true that actually in science theory is somehow just the opposite of hypothesis (i.e., a proven thing). Your philosophy of science point is going over heads. A hypothesis is quite a limited claim, whereas a theory is a framework that has scope to it. Whether that leans more mathematical, bigger scales, smaller scales, all scales, more experimental, etc. It's something that "makes predictions" in the sense that you can ask the framework questions and it produces answers. It explains hopefully both things we know and things we can find out. That's why steady state was/is a theory, like galactocentrism was/is a theory. Theories can just fall out of vogue or no longer extant... even entirely disproven/invalidated.
String theory is at least testable in theory (hurr) even if the hackish advocates of it will never take the increasingly higher energy levels it inhabits as evidence against it.
What you bring up reminds me as an aside of something I cringed at Krauss saying once. He said something like "Doctors aren't actually scientists, what they're doing isn't science." His idea was something like doctors are trained monkeys following a script written by someone else. I found it obnoxious because especially these days there's almost no single person who does every aspect of the scientific process. Take Krauss himself. All theory, no action. Whereas doctors are involved in designing and CARRYING OUT clinical trials. They regularly employ the abductive reasoning that the scientific method uses to generate hypotheses. They collect and analyze data. They interpret results when they read journals and weigh what to do for patients. Someone whose job for tax purposes is "scientist" may in fact spend years and years doing essentially nothing that goes nowhere, whereas someone who in their whole life works odd jobs to support their family but makes but one important breakthrough is "more" of a "scientist" for our ethereal purposes. Kind of like that guy who rejected the Clay medal and Fields medal is more of a "mathematician" than someone kicking a can down the road for 30 years lecturing and going to every math conference every weekend.
Not that any of Krauss or mathematicians or doctors are better or less of a person than the others. Except Krauss for his ivory tower comment.
|
On June 08 2026 19:10 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 06:44 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 06:27 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 05:49 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular! Right! The compromising president was unpopular, partly because the hardline extreme leader of the of the opposing party didn’t allow compromises, even ones that they favoured. Such as on immigration. So now it's Biden's fault that Kamala couldn't draw a distinction between herself and Biden. This might be the apex of denying Kamala agency, and trust me, I've heard that she was the sad result of circumstances beyond her control for at least two years and maybe more. Probably enough playing games with somebody that thinks everything Kamala did wrong is minor compared to her half-assed attempt to play at a moderate. Democrats are kings of trying nothing, and being all out of ideas. Thank god that Trump is term-limited, I swear. On June 08 2026 06:33 Godwrath wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud. I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it. On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:
[quote]
[quote]It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory.
Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward that has a hope of passing or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). On June 08 2026 02:54 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist.
What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical?
I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Israel-Palestine is actually a good example of what needs to happen. The progressive wing of the Democratic party has been making receipt of campaign funds from AIPAC tantamount to a Trump ally and reason to lose your primary (despite however unsuitable the other major candidate is generally). The Democratic party should be about coalition building without litmus tests like AIPAC or "Stop The Genocide" or BDS. There are a ton of other positions to take on this, like Israel has to spend its own money if it wants American weapons, or extracting diplomatic concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza in order to play ball. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). If you get a fighter that knows how to fight back against accusations of extremism, Dems win. And it's not enough to simply not campaign on a topic that you previously spoke on as if it was a core civil rights issue. That leaves you vulnerable to attack. What changed on this civil rights issue, and can you craft a believable/convincing story on what changed? If Biden could drop border crossing to ~30% of previous on June 4th, 2024 (by executive authority, and not through Congress), why was that only done after 8 million peoples-worth of policy failure over his term and his last full year in office? What would you do differently? 2008 Biden could have done it and 2016 Biden could have done it too. But he didn't run in 2016 (I've heard a billion competing theories on that). By 2024, he couldn't debate. Kamala's ... how do I put this gently ... style of rhetoric is not conducive to fighting back on attacks that erode the moderate wing of her base. If she's the nominee, she needs to hone it. And she still might run and win simply based on the weakness of her opponent! I want a better horse in the race. I'm interested, Falling, if you read the investigations prior to the 2024 campaign "she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue ... the VP herself also bears responsibility for the way her office is run. It all starts at the top", 92% staff turnover. And then some of the 2024 campaign post-mortems, like Hey, nobody has come to our neighborhood. The campaign doesn’t care about us... The covert operations, many of them led by Black organizers, represented extraordinary acts of insubordination against the Harris campaign. I'm not going to link all of them. They were diverse enough, and sourced enough, to make me think there was a problem with Harris as an administrator and director of her own campaign, and not just disgruntled campaign operatives beefing about the direction. NYT, Politico, etc reported. If you need more examples, or are unfamiliar with progressive policy ideas apart from the economy and trade, please ask a progressive. We have enough Democrats telling you what Republicans think that getting moderate Democrats telling progressive Democrats what they think is pretty obviously dumb. Sry i don't specifically quote the part you are addressing, on my phone right now. I still don't think you are answering the general points most people and me are making. Is that compromising in "stuff", is a two way street. When you are asking the other side to revert their positions in pretty much everything and stay on the stuff you already agree on, that's not compromising. That's just giving in. That's why the first time i tried to engage with you in this i asked you (as specifically you, not the right) if you already had thought if you really are compromising in a meaningful way? We can also discuss in how well does It works from a strategic point view, but It should be fairly obvious just by looking on how It has worked in the past (and Trump's rise 2015/16 is itself a great example why It does not work against right wing's populism) So i ask you again, are you truly that interested in getting away from trump's populism to compromise ? I don't think you're adequately evaluating or understanding the issue as originally stated, and that's leading to your confusion and perhaps the confusion of others.
On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric.
But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's incumbent on the loser to look at how he/she wins next time. This is especially important if Democracy itself is threatened if said side keeps on winning with what worked last time.
If this is politics as usual, at least in the revealed preferences of posters and the Democrat's progressive wing, then I fully understand your opinion and your positions are in harmony with it. Why change? Keep doing what you're doing. Ride out your advantages (it's (likely) Vance defending the unpopular second term of Trump instead of Kamala defending the unpopular first term of Biden). There really is no stakes on another 4 years on the losing end if you misjudge. So try to maximize your mandate by holding on to every single thing the activist or progressive wing of the party wants to get done nationally.
|
On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point.
I think the big bang theory is a reason why most people know about string theory. Now the people that know about it from their have no depth of knowledge, but have heard the term and figure it’s smart.
|
The reason why Kamala lost is the same reason Trump will lose in 2 years.
The economy.
Nothing you say or do as a candidate matters if the economy is doing badly come election time. (and I don't mean the stock market or gdp or whatever arbitrary metric, what matters is how people feel in their wallet, you know. the real physical economy).
|
On June 08 2026 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:
The reason why Kamala lost is the same reason Trump will lose in 2 years.
The economy.
Nothing you say or do as a candidate matters if the economy is doing badly come election time. (and I don't mean the stock market or gdp or whatever arbitrary metric, what matters is how people feel in their wallet, you know. the real physical economy).
Yep. Not that the unsolicited advice on electioneering from the child rapist supporters isn't appreciated, but the idea that Democrats--whose main problem is that they frequently seem ineffective and weak--should ritually chant the word "compromise" and that'll somehow help them win the next election is pretty baffling.
|
On June 08 2026 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:
The reason why Kamala lost is the same reason Trump will lose in 2 years.
The economy.
Nothing you say or do as a candidate matters if the economy is doing badly come election time. (and I don't mean the stock market or gdp or whatever arbitrary metric, what matters is how people feel in their wallet, you know. the real physical economy).
I do think the economy (or, at least, how voters perceive the economy) has a major impact on election results. Question for you though: When Harris was running, she obviously represented a continuation of the Biden-Harris presidency. Assuming Trump doesn't run for a third term, do you think other Republican nominees might have to carry the same negative-economic baggage that JD Vance might have to carry? Like, for better or for worse, JD Vance would represent a continuation of Trump (including the economy during the Trump-Vance term), but if JD Vance loses the primary to a different Republican, then maybe that other Republican might not be dragged down quite so much? Maybe?
|
On June 08 2026 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:
The reason why Kamala lost is the same reason Trump will lose in 2 years.
The economy.
Nothing you say or do as a candidate matters if the economy is doing badly come election time. (and I don't mean the stock market or gdp or whatever arbitrary metric, what matters is how people feel in their wallet, you know. the real physical economy). I do think the economy (or, at least, how voters perceive the economy) has a major impact on election results. Question for you though: When Harris was running, she obviously represented a continuation of the Biden-Harris presidency. Assuming Trump doesn't run for a third term, do you think other Republican nominees might have to carry the same negative-economic baggage that JD Vance might have to carry? Like, for better or for worse, JD Vance would represent a continuation of Trump (including the economy during the Trump-Vance term), but if JD Vance loses the primary to a different Republican, then maybe that other Republican might not be dragged down quite so much? Maybe? I don't know actually. Does the average voter that just votes for the other guy whenever the economy is doing bad even know who the VP is?
My initial feeling is that it will probably not matter who the Republican candidate is, unless they really openly run as massively anti Trump, like attacking Trump more then their opposing Democratic nominee.
But if they do that they seem unlikely to win the R primary itself.
|
On June 08 2026 23:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:
The reason why Kamala lost is the same reason Trump will lose in 2 years.
The economy.
Nothing you say or do as a candidate matters if the economy is doing badly come election time. (and I don't mean the stock market or gdp or whatever arbitrary metric, what matters is how people feel in their wallet, you know. the real physical economy). I do think the economy (or, at least, how voters perceive the economy) has a major impact on election results. Question for you though: When Harris was running, she obviously represented a continuation of the Biden-Harris presidency. Assuming Trump doesn't run for a third term, do you think other Republican nominees might have to carry the same negative-economic baggage that JD Vance might have to carry? Like, for better or for worse, JD Vance would represent a continuation of Trump (including the economy during the Trump-Vance term), but if JD Vance loses the primary to a different Republican, then maybe that other Republican might not be dragged down quite so much? Maybe? I don't know actually. Does the average voter that just votes for the other guy whenever the economy is doing bad even know who the VP is? My initial feeling is that it will probably not matter who the Republican candidate is, unless they really openly run as massively anti Trump, like attacking Trump more then their opposing Democratic nominee. But if they do that they seem unlikely to win the R primary itself.
Yeah demonizing Trump will definitely be a no-no for Republican primary candidates, if they want to win.
|
On June 08 2026 23:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 22:34 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? You ignored my questions about all 4 of your previously mentioned hypotheses, and now you want my take on an outdated model of the universe's formation that has since been replaced by big bang cosmology? Okay, fine: No I don't believe in a steady state, and it's not a scientific theory either. It's the 5th hypothesis you've brought up, and it's one that's already been disproven. I didn't ask you if you believe in steady-state. I asked you if you believe that this theory is/was scientific. And that's where we differ. Because I (and all physicists I know) believe Steady-state is/was scientific theory. It's just a really shitty one and one that was proven false long ago. Still, it has most of the markings of well defined theory. It made some predictions which was later tested and proven to be false. And I am ignoring most of what You write because it is just bollocks. Your understanding of the topic being discussed is superficial at best. On June 08 2026 21:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not? Also, your use of the phrase "theory of science" is not the same as a scientific theory like evolutionary, big bang, germ, atomic, gravitational, and plate tectonics. "Theory of science" is more akin to how we believe science / scientists should generally operate, which I agree with you includes things "that scientists actually do" (methodological naturalism and the scientific method/process come to mind). I think it's important for you to straighten out theory/hypothesis vs. scientific theory vs. mathematical theorem first though, before throwing out another similarly-sounding phrase like "theory of science". Of course it is not the same.... Theory of science is a theory of how science is conducted as a human activity. How people produce scientific theories is one area of the theory of science... On June 08 2026 22:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. At the moment the most we are going to get is "a controversy flag", which is the weaselly way of doing this. Yeah, I fear that things will only get worse in terms of tech literacy and the ability to research / vet things, with the assumption that accessible AI will always be correct. On June 08 2026 20:33 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers. Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theoremI would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case... This isn't my opinion, and I don't make the rules. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Full stop. This is what I am trying to explain to You. In reality, many theories considered scientific are not really falsifiable. With string theory being the prime example. While DPB is trivially right that a scientific theory isn't just a "hypothesis," it's not simply true that actually in science theory is somehow just the opposite of hypothesis (i.e., a proven thing). Your philosophy of science point is going over heads. A hypothesis is quite a limited claim, whereas a theory is a framework that has scope to it. Whether that leans more mathematical, bigger scales, smaller scales, all scales, more experimental, etc. It's something that "makes predictions" in the sense that you can ask the framework questions and it produces answers. It explains hopefully both things we know and things we can find out. That's why steady state was/is a theory, like galactocentrism was/is a theory. Theories can just fall out of vogue or no longer extant... even entirely disproven/invalidated. String theory is at least testable in theory (hurr) even if the hackish advocates of it will never take the increasingly higher energy levels it inhabits as evidence against it. What you bring up reminds me as an aside of something I cringed at Krauss saying once. He said something like "Doctors aren't actually scientists, what they're doing isn't science." His idea was something like doctors are trained monkeys following a script written by someone else. I found it obnoxious because especially these days there's almost no single person who does every aspect of the scientific process. Take Krauss himself. All theory, no action. Whereas doctors are involved in designing and CARRYING OUT clinical trials. They regularly employ the abductive reasoning that the scientific method uses to generate hypotheses. They collect and analyze data. They interpret results when they read journals and weigh what to do for patients. Someone whose job for tax purposes is "scientist" may in fact spend years and years doing essentially nothing that goes nowhere, whereas someone who in their whole life works odd jobs to support their family but makes but one important breakthrough is "more" of a "scientist" for our ethereal purposes. Kind of like that guy who rejected the Clay medal and Fields medal is more of a "mathematician" than someone kicking a can down the road for 30 years lecturing and going to every math conference every weekend. Not that any of Krauss or mathematicians or doctors are better or less of a person than the others. Except Krauss for his ivory tower comment.
Medicine really is an interesting topic. Personally, I am of the opinion that when you do research/trials, etc. You do science, but if you only practice is more akin to doing engineering --> it is more like applying already understood principles in practice. Is it science? I have no problem either way. For some it might be, for some it might not.
Regarding the Grigorij Perelman (I assume that's who you mean), I would definitely call him a scientist.
When I am talking about the practice of doing science I do not mean administrative work, or filing for grants or anything like that. I just want to stress there is much more to science than simply formulating theories and testing them. There is speculation, discussion, brainstorming. Theories do mature over time and often are not testable from the get-go. Sometimes it takes years. I also do not believe that a well-defined theory stops being scientific when it is proven false.
Take this thought experiment: Let's imagine that tomorrow they discover the supersymmetry at LHC. Does it mean that some parts of standard model suddenly become non-science and some variant of string theory suddenly becomes science? I think that is a ridiculous take. It is either science or it is not, regardless of result of experiment. It is the method that matters.
|
On June 08 2026 22:07 LightSpectra wrote:
Conservatives are having their usual meltdown on social media because the demsoc candidate Nithya Raman passed the MAGAt candidate Spencer Pratt in the first round of the Los Angeles mayoral election count (incumbent Karen Bass is still in first place).
We should ban reporting preliminary results in election counts so people stop shitting their pants when the results change as the ballots are counted.
The best part is that neither of them are close to Bass, so it’ll almost certainly be a moot point anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
