Editing Talk:171: String Theory

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)
Latest revision		Your text
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 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)