XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/22/2026 4:24 PM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:46:47 -0600, Dawn Flood   
   >  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   > <10ktk9o$3629l$1@dont-email.me> wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > Such are in the minority and almost always have a exclusion   
   > factor that has an obvious downside.   
   >   
      
   Yep.  What are the consequences of getting rid of lead-based paint?!   
   Excluding, of course, that certain paint companies may make less money!!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)