tiny_electron

@tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?

EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something...

tiny_electron,

Try doing some simple physics experiments with pendulum and stuff. It is quite simple to set up and will make you use many different physics concepts.

For quantum mechanics, I suggest diffraction and the double slit experiment that are quite easy to do with a cheap laser pointer.

That way you can rediscover scientific models yourself!

If you are not willing to try it, then you don’t really have legitimacy criticizing thé work of scientists.

tiny_electron,

I disagree. Science is making models to explain the data and testing them. Whichever model fits best the data becomes a leading theory. There is no belief whatsoever.

This aside, I agree with you that many people tend to mistake scientific theories for reality, they are merely good models. Thinking otherwise is belief.

Let’s say the universe is a clock that we can’t open. Even if we make a perfect model that predicts the exact motion of the hands, it doesn’t tell us anything about what is inside the clock (it could be anything really). Belief is when you start believing your model IS what is inside the clock.

tiny_electron,

Even if belief is very present in human nature, the scientific method is not a form of belief because it is just selectionning the model that fits best the data.

Coming up with models does not necessarily require intuition either when we can automate this process.

Belief is human, but science is universal.

tiny_electron, (edited )

Religion is not a theory because it cannot be falsified.

And the theory of evolution is not belief as it can be observed in real time in labs with flies for exemple.

Your equality is therefore incorrect.

Edit: typo

tiny_electron,

I agree it is not straightforward. Evolution arises from gene reproduction, flies are just one easy example because they reproduce very fast. Humans are also using genes reproduction and our evolution can be also be traced. The evidence for evolution is everywhere and it is the simplest explanation that fits all the data.

tiny_electron,

I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.

tiny_electron,

Where do you see belief in what I explained? I’m genuinely curious.

It can’t be the observations as you can make them for yourself, and you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”

Then what is it?

tiny_electron,

Flies are very different than humans, but they are built using the same building blocks and processes.

It is not belief it is observation: humans are composed of cells that contain chromosomes. Genetic data is mixed with errors during reproduction (both with flies and humans) resulting in different characteristics in the individuals of the next generation (observable with flies and humans)

Sexual attactiveness of individuals will depend on their genes and their environment (also based on observation), which will impact their number of offspring, effectively selecting some genes and discarding others.

All of this is based on simple observation and you sée that belief has no place in this line of reasoning.

Of course there is more to flies and humans than evolution, yet evolution is such a simple process that it applies to both! Nature is truly amazing

tiny_electron,

It is just a logical statement. A theory must maximize data fitting and minimize assumption. You cannot beat a theory that fits all the data with only one assumption.

Sadly we are not having a debate as I’m giving arguments and you are not willing to criticize them on a core level. I hope other people find this one sided conversation useful.

tiny_electron,

Melted cheese or coco milk with curry

tiny_electron,

Ubuntu 24.04!

tiny_electron,

For a long time, and still now, left is met with criticism. People just like to control other people’s lives strangely

tiny_electron,

This never gets old lmao

tiny_electron,

Pitivi is really nice

I Made Screen Brightness Control on Gnome Much Better (gitlab.gnome.org)

Anyone here struggle with trying to adjust brightness on Gnome in low light? At the low end, the steps are way too far apart, and at high brightness they’re almost imperceptible. Every other operating system uses a brightness curve that better matches human perception....

tiny_electron,

This is really cool. I would like to see it merged

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #