How do you disprove physics?

We speak dutch now? I hadn't noticed. [sharedmedia=gallery:images:70378]

 

To add: and because they are the same words in english I assumed they were interchangeable in english as well And I still think they are I feel you are arguing semantics more and more lately, ghost!

 

You could even say that a 'fact' in the context of science is actually only a statistical probability.

 

But that statistical probability may be judged by the scientist's knowledge of human nature, or he may assume positively that the set of unknown outcomes of the bid are to be contested in a lack of human nature. Facts generally are a matter beyond human nature; human nature is only the judgement of Fact for which the facticity is the lesson in the mind.

Generally, it is more enlightening to learn about human nature, and forget the facts in favour of an understanding about specialists working like drilling for oil in a massive sedimentary formation from the carboniferous (in repetition).

Basically one will never disprove physics this way.

 

Fact:
noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth:

Your fears have no basis in fact.


2.something known to exist or to have happened:

Space travel is now a fact.


3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

I don't know, it seems to me that it means more than probability.

 

I guess I often get all hung up on the tittles, and the nipples---but not entirely----I know there is more to a woman than that.

----her legs, her neck, her face----and all those other parts you know----------oh, and her ideas too---yes her ideas and information, yes, that too, your right...

 

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

 

Their products worked so well for The Coyote.

 

Probably

 

I guess the better way to express something like the water boiling issue would be to say that it is a fact that water boils, but at different temperatures based on elevation.

 

Are you saying that you would not ride that thing?

If you have to die, that's the way to die.

 

I gather from the theses represented in the previous posts that people on this web site believe that there is no ultimate human nature for the Progress. For Popper science progresses, and the truth of the knowledge of science progresses for the probability of human nature being at truth as such and such as the knowledge edged for knowing true human nature. It is only to know the truth of the Facts for undiscovered Nature.

What is mathematics about for the truth of discovered nature?

 

Well, they would have worked well, but he didn't follow the instructions. But then, how could he? He's a frickin' coyote! Coyotes can't read.

On a related note, the Acme company sued the Coyote for not following instructions, and thereby representing their products as inherently faulty in nearly every cartoon. Sadly, the Coyote lost most of his cartoon earning as a result of the lawsuit, and what little he had left was soon squandered on a bad peyote habit. He died penniless in the desert, his body picked over by roadrunners.
________________________________________________________________

EDIT: I apologize for trolling this thread, and this is the last time I wil do it. But thedope is the one who really started it. Just sayin' . . .

 

Popper becomes alkyl nitrates and we dance all night.

 

It's a hell of a lot better than dying of old age in a nursing home that smells like piss.

Payback is hell.

Oh, the woes of selling products to the general public.
:hitsfan:

 

Unfortunately, while science is non-dogmatic-----many scientists themselves tend to suffer dogmatism. The process of peer review, for example, is designed to maintain integrity in research and scientific method, and is usually very good at keeping BS from becoming established as science. On the other hand, there are things that are different or controversial, yet have been backed by extensive research using the scientific method, and stand up very well, mathematically or whatever the case is, yet fail peer review. At the same time there are cases of dubious crap, that have passed peer review----including complicated BS that was originally intended as a joke.

Egyptology is always a good example-----try stating something that goes against the cemented facts propounded---er, excuse me, preached by Egyptologists and it won't matter how much factual basis you have to back it up-----you are wrong. So the Ankh hieroglyph and symbol, for example, is based on a sandal strap-----which I disagree with, despite the fact that Budge's dictionary of Hieroglyphs has many examples, that suggest something more profound------including those of shooting stars and other objects that are more suited to tying the hieroglyph to Egyptian myth. (And of course, if you were to go against Budge---Lord God of Egyptian research...)

 

The term probability kind of conjures up a notion of like a random throw of the dice and expecting it to land on say a 2. Most good, sound science is more like hypothesizing the dice to roll a 2 with having like a device roll the dice at at a particular angle and releasing it at a particular velocity, distance, etc. and accounting for all the variables which may cause a outcome different than the hypothesis. With all that considered, there is likely to be a pretty reliable and consistent result.


Although due to some of the obstacles in Cosmology and quantum physics, it seems it may be more difficult to control research and studies in the same way as applied to research and studies with other science, which can be done in a lab to tell us about our world and on macroscopic levels.

 

You're totally right.

About egyptology... that's a social, or "soft" science. You're talking about studying religion.... and they don't really want a bunch of ancient aliens fucktards (no offense, if you are an ancient alien fucktard) running around and making a mockery of their entire field of study, as well as actually polluting the science (see: problems with peer review and how bullshit sometimes gets right through).

I don't know about the sandal strap, but I think you're missing exactly how profound shoes are in terms of what they make possible. A sandal is a really big fucking deal when you live in a desert, and when your people got there by migrating out of the way of the desertification of the sahara.