Talk:171: String Theory - Revision history

172.68.35.114: Add comment about the nature of science

2025-04-20T05:43:06Z

Add comment about the nature of science

Kazvorpal at 04:07, 6 October 2019

2019-10-06T04:07:41Z

Kazvorpal: Created page with "It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may cause Y. You need falsifiabi..."

2019-10-06T04:05:54Z

Created page with "It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may cause Y. You need falsifiabi..."

New page

It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may cause Y. You need falsifiability, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 20 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may also cause Y. You need falsifiability, the ability to ''disprove'' your model if it's wrong, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Like the geocentric model, QM mostly made bad predictions at first, but its failures are constantly propped up with epicycles and deferents. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)		It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may also cause Y. You need falsifiability, the ability to ''disprove'' your model if it's wrong, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Like the geocentric model, QM mostly made bad predictions at first, but its failures are constantly propped up with epicycles and deferents. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	The above comment makes a subtle mistake, which I hope to correct in an enlightening manner. 1. Theories are frameworks to predict, not truths of the world. Theories are math designed to produce the same results as reality. 2. Frameworks can't be proven, just disproven. What matters is whether they are useful. For example, Newtonian mechanics is still taught because it is still useful (it is only very slightly wrong at low speeds and gravities, with much simpler math than SR or GR). Quantum mechanics is very useful; its math well encapsulates the behavior of things on small scales, and this has been used to great effect (lasers, computer hardware design, advanced chemistry, etc.)
		+	--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.114\|172.68.35.114]] 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:07, 6 October 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may cause Y. You need falsifiability, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)	+	It should be noted that positive predictions are not sound scientific methodology. "If X, then Y will happen" doesn't prove X, because W and Q may also cause Y. You need falsifiability, the ability to ''disprove'' your model if it's wrong, in order to produce even a sound theory. Because of this, not only is string hypothesis not really sound science, but neither is a lot of Quantum Mechanics, which successfully predicts in sync with observations in a way that doesn't exclude other causes for the same outcomes. The geocentric model had a slightly better positive prediction success rate than quantum mechanics does...and they were wrong. Like the geocentric model, QM mostly made bad predictions at first, but its failures are constantly propped up with epicycles and deferents. Positivism and instrumentalism are bad science, and generally will lead knowledge in the wrong direction. — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)