XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism
From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com
On 1/22/2026 9:22 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:11:27 +0100, Paul Aubrin
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> wrote:
>
>> Le 22/01/2026 à 10:11, Attila a écrit :
>>> Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
>>> hy·poth·e·sis
>>> /hi'päTH?s?s/
>>> noun
>>> a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of
>>> limited evidence as a starting point for further
>>> investigation
>>
>> Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law.
>> In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First we
>> guess it. Well don't laugh that's really true. Then we compute the
>> consequences of the guess to see, if this law that we guessed is right,
>> what it would imply, and then we compare those computational results to
>> nature (to experiment or experience). That is we compare it directly
>> with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment,
>> it's wrong.
>> In that simple statement is the key to science.
>> It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't
>> make any difference how smart you are who made the guess, or what your
>> name is. If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong, that's all.
>>
>> Richard Feynman.
>
> Dead on.
>
> 'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
> heralds the most discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but ‘That’s
> funny...’
>
> — Isaac Asimov
>
Problem is, of course, that some "experiments" are impossible to
perform, such as the use of lead-based paints in homes and lead
poisoning in young children vis-à-vis a double-blinded,
placebo-controlled randomized study. Such may be a case of "correlation
does not equate to causation", but a clear vector exists (little
children sometimes digest paint or breath paint dust into their lungs)
as to explain the existence of the correlation.
Dawn
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
