COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[George Christiansen]

If it can't be questioned, like this climate-change bullshit, it's not science. But before you can question it, you have to understand it. You don't.

If it can't be falsified then it isn't science.

The vast majority of what is taught as the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable for all the same reasons climate "science" is: it's based upon assumptions that cannot be tested, let alone falsified.

[Mark Rippetoe]

If it can't be falsified then it isn't science.

The vast majority of what is taught as the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable for all the same reasons climate "science" is: it's based upon assumptions that cannot be tested, let alone falsified.

Finally, something intelligent. Most biology teachers do not understand the processes by which things change over time, and therefore cannot explain it correctly. For there to be no 'evolution" the earth must be only 6000 years old. Do you still believe that too? Mutation is certainly not the only mechanism by which life changes over time.

[Cascadian]

Scientific theories, like quantum mechanics or evolution, are not models of "Nature" or "reality".

Scientific theories are models (I prefer "metaphors") of our observations.

What we see is not the same as "what is." No one has ever seen a 3D object. We only see lower dimensional parts at a time, and piece together our observations to imagine, or mentally map, a 3D object.

As I always tell people, "The map is not the mountain."

But that does not mean maps are not useful, if only within a limited scope? Maxwell's equations are spectacularly beautiful and powerful metaphors that describe the electromagnetic spectrum, and are broadly applicable to almost every aspect of our modern lives, from 3-phase power, to computer circuitry, signal transmission, eye glasses, ... the list is long indeed. They sure seem scientific AF.

But Maxwell's equations break down with the oh-so-simple double slit experiment. They must be augmented with quantum mechanics, another magnificent metaphor with mind-blowing consistency and confirmation, but which too has a limited scope of application, beyond which it fails.

So, does the "failure" of a scientific - read: observational - model (or metaphor, or map), when it is used beyond its scope of application, render it useless? Or unscientific?

The flippant dismissal of "man's puny calculus" is one's prerogative, but broadly applied, would find us still living in the age of sticks and stone, covered in fleas, living to a ripe old age of 31.