Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. Remember, kids:

Remember, kids:

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
psaevolutionglobalwarmingdeadinternetthescience
26 Indlæg 16 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place

    @swoonie @juergen_hubert

    > based on *a hypothesis* that was first formulated in the 19th century

    fixed that for you.

    to be even clearer this time: you use the word "theory" wrong, like many people and politicians do.

    swoonie@mastodon.ieS This user is from outside of this forum
    swoonie@mastodon.ieS This user is from outside of this forum
    swoonie@mastodon.ie
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #21

    @lritter @juergen_hubert
    If your use of the word “theory” confuses everyone, then it is a confusing use of this word and should be avoided.

    Even if You Know You Are Right™.

    lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • swoonie@mastodon.ieS swoonie@mastodon.ie

      @lritter @juergen_hubert
      If your use of the word “theory” confuses everyone, then it is a confusing use of this word and should be avoided.

      Even if You Know You Are Right™.

      lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
      lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
      lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #22

      @swoonie @juergen_hubert tomorrow it's going to hit a word that matters to you professionally, as punishment for what you just said.

      swoonie@mastodon.ieS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place

        @swoonie @juergen_hubert tomorrow it's going to hit a word that matters to you professionally, as punishment for what you just said.

        swoonie@mastodon.ieS This user is from outside of this forum
        swoonie@mastodon.ieS This user is from outside of this forum
        swoonie@mastodon.ie
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #23

        @lritter @juergen_hubert
        Gotta get on with my day now, buddy.
        Have a good one!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place

          @swoonie @juergen_hubert it was a *hypothesis*, now it is theory. that is exactly jürgen's point.

          androcat@toot.catA This user is from outside of this forum
          androcat@toot.catA This user is from outside of this forum
          androcat@toot.cat
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #24

          @lritter

          You can't observe a theory.

          What we observe is facts.

          The explanation we tack onto it is a theory.

          Most of evolution is the facts. We can literally see evolution happening.
          Those facts are not a theory, they're the bar any theory has to get over.

          Climate change, likewise, is observable fact. And any theory of climate will have to incorporate those facts and explain them.

          Does that clear it up?

          @swoonie @juergen_hubert

          lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • androcat@toot.catA androcat@toot.cat

            @lritter

            You can't observe a theory.

            What we observe is facts.

            The explanation we tack onto it is a theory.

            Most of evolution is the facts. We can literally see evolution happening.
            Those facts are not a theory, they're the bar any theory has to get over.

            Climate change, likewise, is observable fact. And any theory of climate will have to incorporate those facts and explain them.

            Does that clear it up?

            @swoonie @juergen_hubert

            lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
            lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
            lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #25

            @androcat @swoonie @juergen_hubert in your words, what is the difference between hypothesis and theory?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • juergen_hubert@mementomori.socialJ juergen_hubert@mementomori.social

              Remember, kids:

              In proper scientific terms, an attempt to explain observable phenomena is called a "hypothesis".

              It is called a "theory" when it fits all the observable facts, and there is no observable evidence to the contrary. We don't call it a "truth" because there's always a chance that it might be overturned by later evidence - but as far as science is concerned, a "theory" is as hard as it gets.

              This is often confusing to people who dismiss science they don't like as "it's just a theory". But this distinction should be kept in mind when discussing things like the "Theory of Evolution", "Theory of Relativity", "Global Warming Theory", and "Dead Internet Theory".

              #PSA #Evolution #GlobalWarming #DeadInternetTheory #Science #Theory

              malte@radikal.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
              malte@radikal.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
              malte@radikal.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #26

              @juergen_hubert Good reminder! One thing I'm missing from your description: Can you have competing scientific theories in your definition? I'm reminded of Kuhn's concept of paradigms which entails that there is always some conflicting evidence that any paradigm tends to dismiss (as noise, mistakes etc). Paradigms tend to shift when the conflicting evidence becomes overwhelming and a new theory manages to account for those previous exceptions.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              Svar
              • Svar som emne
              Login for at svare
              • Ældste til nyeste
              • Nyeste til ældste
              • Most Votes


              • Log ind

              • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

              • Login or register to search.
              Powered by NodeBB Contributors
              Graciously hosted by data.coop
              • First post
                Last post
              0
              • Hjem
              • Seneste
              • Etiketter
              • Populære
              • Verden
              • Bruger
              • Grupper