So much news, so little sense

[Michael Tee]

<<Because it was never a theory. No collected data, other than one point (which is insufficient for even a hypothesis to be formed), no mathematical foundation, no formal testing, no boundaries, no formalization, etc...

<<Absolutely cannot be a theory.>>

Please.  At least prove to me that you are capable of counting up to three.  Any scientist should be able to do that.

The data for your theory consisted of the following three points:
1.  You posted a response to my previous post.
2.  A certain amount of time then elapsed.
3.  At the end of the elapsed time, I had not answered your post.

[Michael Tee]

<<So now you're saying that even scientific laws are nothing more than good guesses until something better comes along? They're just theories with a different name?>>

You got it, Einstein.

[Amianthus]

Please.  At least prove to me that you are capable of counting up to three.  Any scientist should be able to do that.

The data for your theory consisted of the following three points:
1.  You posted a response to my previous post.
2.  A certain amount of time then elapsed.
3.  At the end of the elapsed time, I had not answered your post.

Which was one data point for the theory that you actually proposed.

[Amianthus]

<<So now you're saying that even scientific laws are nothing more than good guesses until something better comes along? They're just theories with a different name?>>

You got it, Einstein.

OK, that proves you do not understand science.

A scientific law must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Which is why evolution will never become a law - it is not simple.

[Michael Tee]

<<A scientific law must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.>>

Bullshit.  Newton's laws, for example, did not take into account the curvature of space.  They do not predict the motion of objects travelling to a nearly infinite distance or travelling at close to the speed of light, and yet they're still working fine on the pool tables of this planet.

I'm afraid I'm just going to have to declare victory and hit enter, Ami.  It's long past the time when I should have gotten to work.  Long and short of it is, a hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess awaiting validation through experimentation and if you don't want to admit it, that's gonna have to be your problem.

[Michael Tee]

<<Which was one data point for the theory that you actually proposed.>>

Maybe three equals one in the Christian religion, Ami, but that's not how it works in science.  I never bought into that "three is one" crap in the religious area and I'm not buying it here either.

[Amianthus]

<<Which was one data point for the theory that you actually proposed.>>

Maybe three equals one in the Christian religion, Ami, but that's not how it works in science.  I never bought into that "three is one" crap in the religious area and I'm not buying it here either.

The only data point in that set was the length of time that had elapsed without a post.

What other data was there?

The post I made and then my later post were start and end time markers, not data.

[Michael Tee]

<<The post I made and then my later post were start and end time markers, not data.>>

That's pure sophistry.  there were three data:  post, time elapsed, failure to respond.

[Amianthus]

That's pure sophistry.  there were three data:  post, time elapsed, failure to respond.

And you have just demonstrated that you do not understand collection of scientific data, either.

[Michael Tee]

<<And you have just demonstrated that you do not understand collection of scientific data, either.>>

Why?  Because I detected three valid data, any one of which if varied or absent would have affected the result and was therefore critical?  Whereas you could only find one single datum?  That's hilarious.  Remind me not to ask YOU to collect data for anyone's next experiment.  It would clearly fail for lack of sufficient data, but the real fault would lie with the data collector.

[Amianthus]

Why?  Because I detected three valid data, any one of which if varied or absent would have affected the result and was therefore critical?  Whereas you could only find one single datum?  That's hilarious.  Remind me not to ask YOU to collect data for anyone's next experiment.  It would clearly fail for lack of sufficient data, but the real fault would lie with the data collector.

You collected three different types of data and grouped them together.

That is invalid.

[Plane]

According to Heisenberg , there is an absolute limit on the fineness of measurement .


And Schroedinger has no pity for cats.


Human Humility should circumscribe our confidence in human perception of truth , even as it becomes finer and grander , we become more aware of limits we didn't know of before, in our ability to know.

[Michael Tee]

<<You collected three different types of data and grouped them together.

<<That is invalid.>>

That's ludicrous.  You needed each datum I collected to come to your conclusion.

[Amianthus]

That's ludicrous.  You needed each datum I collected to come to your conclusion.

I never had a "conclusion", much less a theory.

And you cannot group different types of data together for evidence. It violates scientific method.

[Michael Tee]

<<And you cannot group different types of data together for evidence. It violates scientific method.>>

So if I'm calculating the path of a bullet, I can't put muzzle velocity together with atmospheric  pressure together with the mass of the bullet because that's mixing data?

Tell ya what, Ami, you practice science YOUR way, and I'll try to practice it my way.