[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 68 KB, 500x533, dogs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10273654 No.10273654 [Reply] [Original]

> Arithmetic on an Intel Pentium processor with the FDIV bug is a correct and incomplete description of reality
> The flat earth model is a correct and incomplete description of reality
> Young earth creationism is a correct and incomplete description of reality
> Aristotle's theory of motion is a correct and incomplete description of reality
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's. Unless you're Steven Hawking, in which case it is.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory. Unless you are Galileo, in which case you don't need to.

For those who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete":
With "correct" I mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity.
"Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>> No.10273660

>>10273654
>my theory that every prime number is even is correct within the theory's domain of validity
>domain of validity: the number 2
> :^)

Irrelevant as I prefer to increase domain of validity whenever possible. Do you want a gold star for being the most pedantic OP in recent memory?

>> No.10273662

>>10273654
Another elementary fact: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,

>> No.10273665
File: 43 KB, 234x478, blockuniverse.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10273665

What does /sci/ think of the growing block universe theory?

>> No.10273670
File: 238 KB, 720x452, evidenceofabsence.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10273670

>>10273662
>what is Bayes' Theorem

>> No.10273672

>>10273665
did i actually get banned or is this just words

>> No.10273673

>>10273670
>what is Bayes' Theorem
All reputable statisticians reject Bayes "theorem".

>> No.10273709

>>10273654
>Man
>Woman
Getting real tired of this pedo shit

>> No.10273747

>>10273673
>All reputable statisticians
Name 1

>> No.10274333

>>10273747
>Name 1
Myself.

>> No.10274367

>>10273654
There is something horribly wrong with this image.

>> No.10274389

>>10273654
Is this about the Newton thread?

>> No.10274655

>>10273654
what happened to the previous thread you started with exactly this text, only with a different picture? are you going to keep posting this until you get banned or what?

>> No.10274670

>>10274655
>what happened to the previous thread you started with exactly this text, only with a different picture?
Learn to read.