Remember me
▼ Content

Falsifiable or Not?


Falsifiable or Not?19-05-2017 00:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
On May 18, 1980, Mt. St. Helens exploded. There was no warning. It soon stopped. We have no idea where the heat came from or where it went. Obviously this isn't science because some people believe that science is only science if it consists of a theory that can be falsified.

Who CARES if the definition of science is: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

We don't care bout no "study". Only falsifiable theories.
19-05-2017 02:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5222)
Wake wrote:We don't care bout no "study". Only falsifiable theories.

Correct. Studies are not science. "Evidence" is not science. A "consensus" of subjective opinion is not science nor is science determined by any democratic vote among any group.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which predictions of nature (hypotheses) can be derived.

The scientific method is a systematic and exhaustive battery of tests attempting to falsify a science model.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2017 05:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:We don't care bout no "study". Only falsifiable theories.

Correct. Studies are not science. "Evidence" is not science. A "consensus" of subjective opinion is not science nor is science determined by any democratic vote among any group.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which predictions of nature (hypotheses) can be derived.

The scientific method is a systematic and exhaustive battery of tests attempting to falsify a science model.
.


And we're still hearing that haughty "Duhhhhhh".

A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Is there ANYTHING you can get correct? Limited knowledge - do you suppose that means that it must be STUDIED? And that STUDY is science.

Virtually NONE of science 100% so according to you there is no science because science isn't the study of anything.
19-05-2017 06:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5222)
Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2017 17:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.


No ideas start in your head. You can't even interpret the Stefan-Boltzmann law with 15 references to it. You don't understand it. You don't understand the study of science and you probably have to wear diapers because you don't understand how to use an urinal.
21-05-2017 02:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.


You have to admit that was some pretty good insults.

The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible. How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe. The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?
22-05-2017 02:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5222)
Wake wrote: The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible.

I'm in a more cordial mood at the moment so bear with me.

Science is not an action. Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which nature-predicting hypotheses can be derived.

What is impossible about that?

Wake wrote: How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

You don't. You show that it is false ... if you can. Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable."

Wake wrote: The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

You don't. Neither Evolution, Big Bang or any other speculation about the past is science. Until we develop time machines, the scientific method cannot be applied to any speculation about past.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-05-2017 06:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible.

I'm in a more cordial mood at the moment so bear with me.

Science is not an action. Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which nature-predicting hypotheses can be derived.

What is impossible about that?

Wake wrote: How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

You don't. You show that it is false ... if you can. Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable."

Wake wrote: The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

You don't. Neither Evolution, Big Bang or any other speculation about the past is science. Until we develop time machines, the scientific method cannot be applied to any speculation about past.


.


As is usual you cordiality is questionable. Rather than answer the questions you invent answers to your own questions.

I plainly asked you - how do you know that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe even after I've quoted that the initial universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light?

http://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Can you for once address the question instead of closing your mind yet tighter?

I find it no surprise rather than answer a question you run away with a stupid, "Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable.""

In other words you don't mean provable - only that it COULD be provable.
22-05-2017 14:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5222)
Wake wrote: As is usual you cordiality is questionable. Rather than answer the questions you invent answers to your own questions.

Apparently you have only one mode: "ashsole who is determined to remain stupid." As long as I know up front then we're good.

Wake wrote: I plainly asked you - how do you know that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe even after I've quoted that the initial universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light?

... and apparently you are not literate enough to understand my clear and straightforward explanation.

Ergo, the problem is on your end.

Wake wrote: Can you for once address the question instead of closing your mind yet tighter?

Try READING, dumbass.

Wake wrote: I find it no surprise rather than answer a question you run away with a stupid, "Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable.""

... and you didn't understand the words.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-05-2017 00:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.


You have to admit that was some pretty good insults.

The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible. How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.
It isn't. The speed of light is different in different materials. The rainbow is a good example of it.
Wake wrote:
The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

Not science. The Big Bang theory is not falsifiable.
Wake wrote:
How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

You can't. Therefore, it is not science. The Big Bang theory remains a circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2017 01:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible.

I'm in a more cordial mood at the moment so bear with me.

Science is not an action. Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which nature-predicting hypotheses can be derived.

What is impossible about that?

Wake wrote: How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

You don't. You show that it is false ... if you can. Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable."

Wake wrote: The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

You don't. Neither Evolution, Big Bang or any other speculation about the past is science. Until we develop time machines, the scientific method cannot be applied to any speculation about past.


.


Here's an interesting notion:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 06:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5222)
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-05-2017 17:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .


You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.
25-05-2017 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first.


.

All quite true.

I am just fictionalizing here that such a machine is somehow possible. You know, like Hollywood movies do.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .


You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 21:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .


You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!


Of course that's impossible but as you can see - with the theory of relativity it wouldn't have helped you in the least to be able to do it.
04-06-2017 19:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .


You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!


Of course that's impossible but as you can see - with the theory of relativity it wouldn't have helped you in the least to be able to do it.


The fastest object that Earth has produced to leave this Solar System (we THINK it's left), is travelling at approximately 30,000 mph. The closest star is Proxima Centuri at 4.243 light years or 24,905,194,804,800 miles away.

So the fastest object that Earth has produced will take about 755 million years to get there if it had even been aiming for that star. Were Earth to stretch their power and produce a vehicle that could go 100 times faster we're still talking about 7.5 million years aren't we.

The CLOSE areas of the universe are unimaginably far and the same people that think that man will fly to the stars someday think that man-made climate change is happening.

If you ponder that but for a minute you can see the extreme failing of the educational systems around the world.
04-06-2017 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .


You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!


Of course that's impossible but as you can see - with the theory of relativity it wouldn't have helped you in the least to be able to do it.


The fastest object that Earth has produced to leave this Solar System (we THINK it's left), is travelling at approximately 30,000 mph. The closest star is Proxima Centuri at 4.243 light years or 24,905,194,804,800 miles away.

So the fastest object that Earth has produced will take about 755 million years to get there if it had even been aiming for that star. Were Earth to stretch their power and produce a vehicle that could go 100 times faster we're still talking about 7.5 million years aren't we.

The CLOSE areas of the universe are unimaginably far and the same people that think that man will fly to the stars someday think that man-made climate change is happening.

If you ponder that but for a minute you can see the extreme failing of the educational systems around the world.

Certainly in the United States you can. Fortunately, ther ARE people still getting an education, despite this.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Falsifiable or Not?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?3318-10-2015 19:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact