Talk:397: Unscientific

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Just appeneded a paragraph about the title-text. Also tried to word something about it starting off as refering to something from last week, then phased into next week, which is almost certainly a joke on the reversibility of time's arrow within the context of the first item mentioned, but could not get it pithy enough. Over to you to have a go (unless it's a genuine mistake in the first place). 178.98.31.27 13:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As a slight inner joke, I just noticed that it seems quite natural that a zombie Feymann worries about a lack of rigor less than when he was alive... --146.48.82.79 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Should it perhaps be noted that Feynman was a known philanderer, and would therefore be interested in Megan's other body parts as well, not just her brains? 81.17.27.234 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Unmentioned, branes are generalized to a number of dimmensions P, and known as P-Branes... pun on pea-brains 108.162.216.97 20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The obvious joke, to me, is the existence of a zombie; exactly the kind of unscientific myth that needs busting. Mountain Hikes (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Brains vs Branes. String theory joke? Flewk (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the lack of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in 171.173.245.54.54

Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the instrumentalists who use observation combined with experiments to make unscientific claims. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. See string theory. And that is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —Kazvorpal (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)