swansont

What would be spinning?

! Moderator Note That wasn't the subject of the OP. It was reconciling evolution (from the BB) and God, not the BB and the theory of evolution. Further, the thread was not the place to discuss your views on evolution.

Reg Prescott has been banned for serial hijacking, which has become worse with time.

This reminds me: a week or two ago a colleague was telling me about a paper he was reviewing (internal process, before it goes to submission to a journal) and he was critiquing their curve fit, because the authors had not justified why they chose that particular function as a fit. The "let's pick any function that works" just isn't what science does. It's a caricature. It's apparently what some non-scientists guess that scientists do.

This kind of voter fraud rarely happens. But, you could be registered in two separate voting districts. You could have a false identity. You could try to vote in person and also with an absentee ballot. You would likely be caught, since they check, but nothing would prevent you from trying. edit: four cases in 2016. Two were Trump supporters; one of them voted in two separate locations. One was a person filling in an absentee ballot for her dead spouse, and the last was an official who filled in absentee ballots that they were in charge of counting.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 (see the guidelines, in the "browse" tab; emphasis added) Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. So, as studiot has suggested, posting at least the abstract is a must, along with a summary of the relevant material you wish to discuss.

Olin has been banned for not correcting his soapboxing behavior, along with other transgressions of the rules.

You found someone who shares your misunderstanding. Congratulations. A curve fit is not a theory.

And by ignoring, I must assume you mean acknowledge, since that's precisely what I did in my post. I was contrasting what your recommended source says with what you say with regard to the magnitude. Not the issue of other possible theories. At some level it doesn't matter. Whatever data we have, any new theory is going to have to predict precisely that. GR supplanting Newtonian gravity does not invalidate the results that Newtonian gravity gives under the conditions where it works, because they are identical (to reasonable precision) to GR. Our orbit about the sun did not change when people started accepting GR. At such time that a theory of quantum gravity succeeds, it will not change the results of GR (and by extension, Newton). These turtles go all the way down.

Without actual detail (you know, citing the theories in question, rather than providing quotes from other people) it's impossible to address this. Are these actual, accepted theories? Or are they works in progress? And this ignores all the examples where followup experiments did happen.

! Moderator Note I think you need to do a better job of pointing out specifically where the personal attack is (and do so using the "report post" function). Disagreement, calling out deficiencies in logic or understanding — while you may not like it, that's not a personal attack, that's about the subject matter. Unlike "insulting demeaning antagonistic troll looking for a fight" which is personal (i.e. it's about the person), and not anything about subject matter (e.g. your assertion is wrong) or the discussion process (e.g. your thinking is muddled).

Same here. it is interesting to note that this summary says "at least one rival theory", and if one takes Zosimus's suggestion and looks this up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy it says that (emphasis added) "the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it." I note that both of these statements fall far short of Zosimus's original assertion that there are an infinite number of alternate theories Indeed. Rival proposals exist for a number of theories in science. Many more have been proposed and discarded. Scientists choose experiment details to try and fend off critique that alternate explanations could account for the results.

Is this on point for this thread? I mean, it's an interesting phenomenon, and not really unexpected, but I am not seeing the relevance to underdetermination. There's a bit to unpack there. But, again, I'm not seeing the relevance.

What does either statement have to do with anything we're discussing?

Which was after your post, bringing the topic up. Just so we're clear. It had not occurred to me, as they might be only slightly more helpful than philosophers. And neither are philosophers. How would I know? I'm not the one making straw man arguments.