• 0 Posts
  • 82 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle









  • silasmariner@programming.devtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldNo meat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    No I don’t think that’s how the argument was meant to work. I think the point was that since most eggs people eat aren’t fertilised, the initial comparison fails down, but if most eggs were fertilised it wouldn’t. I’m not sure that’s a convincing position myself, but w/e. tbqh I don’t think most people would eat a fertilised egg… Like, you can really tell. I forget where I was going with this. Think I’m gonna go to sleep now. Goodnight.







  • Mate, first of all: chill. Second of all: me, mincing words? You’re the one who’s decided the phrase ‘natural philosophy’ only applies to ancient Greeks. It’s literally just what science used to be called. Being very very hung up on a specific definition of a word or phrase and excluding other common usages is not a good basis for an argument. There need have been no argument at all. ‘We call it science now’ seems to be what you meant, but it’s not coming across well

    Oh. And you can still do science without a theory. It’s called data collection and it is absolutely vital.

    Edit: a good example would be Rosalind Franklin’s work on the structure of DNA. She did some incredible science with x-ray diffraction which was vital to Crick and Watson’s theory of the structure.

    Edit X2: also ‘doing it implicitly’ is totally fucking fine if the result of being invalidated is you create a more refined model of reality. Which is, like, pretty much what the whole thing about astronomy is…


  • silasmariner@programming.devtomemes@lemmy.worldDeep thoughts.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    That sounds plausible but is, in fact, kinda a made up distinction you just came up with. People up to and including Isaac Newton used the phrase ‘natural philosophy’ to describe what they were doing. ‘Testing’ in any meaningful sense of the word was a part of that more often than not. Even Pythagorean astronomy was implicitly testing things by making predictions of the movement of celestial bodies. So, no, but thanks.

    Edit: also worthwhile, I feel, mentioning that a lot of good science is purely observational and involves no direct testing, even of theorems. E.g early paleontology would, I feel, fit into that theme