| | | Eric, you lost the plot here.
Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board - Msg: 34578682 (siliconinvestor.com)
<<You continue to push "antiscience" propaganda.>>
<<Not to mention Tumpism with all of his associated lies.>>
Those statements proved you were steeped in your own bullchit
The arrogance is almost as outstanding as the ignorance.
You don't know the first thing about science, and especially scientific method.
OR
scientific reality.
I found a site that states briefly what I am talking about. It's just a High School site, and lots of spelling mistakes etc, but I am not looking for anything imposing. Brief and simple as possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Describe Falsification Theory. | MyTutor
Describe Falsification Theory.
Falsification Theory is a Philosophical method created by Karl Popper to separate science from pseudo-science. Popper saw a distinction between the works of scientists like Einstein and Newton, and the works of Alder, Marx and Freud which claimed to be scientific.
It is easy to find verifications for just about any theory.A man who pushes a child into the water with the intent of drowning it, and a man sacrificing his life to save a child are equally explainable by Freudian psychology. According to Popper any human action could potentially be justified by Freuds theories.
Confirmations of a theory are only valuable if they are from 'risky predictions', which defy what those not familiar with the theory would expect. A good scientific theory is one that prohibits a result from happening. For example matter cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light.
If a theory isn't irrefutable by any conceivable means it is not a strength but a weakness. One should attempt to prove a theory wrong, if it can withstand such vigorous attempts to show it's falsehood it must be true (or at least be the likely truth). For example if one wanted to refute the earlier claim that matter cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light they would only have to show said event occurring. That no one has shown such evidence suggests that such evidence does not exist therefore the theory is true. However if a theory has no test, (which even hypothetically) has the possibility of refuting it, then said theory is pseudo-scientific as it cannot be examined sceptically. The theory's irrefutability simply shows that it is not making substantive claims about the world, which a true scientific theory must.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My emboldment btw.
Really important that the concept is understood. Verifications are easy, and in "Climate Science" falsehoods are as difficult to find as hens teeth according to what we are told. A lot of scientist disagree but seemingly they don't count if the WEF doesn't like them.
What a joke. It's a Laurel & Hardy level of comedy.
So:-
Yes a Phd should definitely try and convince a lay person that he/she knows what he is talking about. The Phd might well be in fact totally wrong. Putting on airs means sweet eff ay. I worked with enough PhD's in my time to say at about half of them were not up to much. OK they had the qualifications, but at the expense of other important human attributes necessary in scientific work. Learning by rote also figured heavily amongst PhD's. Some of them were truly exceptional of course, but when they blundered, it was usually spectacular.
Having a "paper" in ones name may look good on the CV but it's the content and the validity that matters. When looking for research on a particular subject I had to wade through reams of crap to find anything useful on most occasions. It was just academics trying to get noticed. I am just saying, you prancing about with your high ideas about who knows what is ridiculous from my viewpoint. Amusing yes, but that is as far as it goes.
Your assumption that a political view somehow verifies what is real science and what is not demonstrates how dangerously vacuous your supposed "science" is. |
|
