swansont

Science is based on being repeatable. We do measurements and if we've been careful, we get the same answer to within experimental uncertainty. What does that tell us about reality vs simulation? Or the other question, about whether we are testing for reality?

I'm probably not the only one who gets annoyed at this gambit. You make a claim as if you are quite certain of it, and when pressed, you say "I'm a layman, don't expect me to know details." Jumping into a discussion about science requires some understanding of science. If you don't have the knowledge, then you need to make an effort to gain some. In this case, it's pretty basic: understanding what an hypothesis is, and having a very basic idea of how dark energy and dark matter fit into cosmology. If you don't have that, then read up on it, and ask questions. You've been a member long enough to know the patience and helpfulness of the members here when they are asked sincere questions. Well, one relies on a mythical being, so I'd say science is "more real" than that, but this again misses the point, which was whether the goal of science is to confirm reality. Science is limited to observations. I suspect that this is not a true statement, and as such, any conclusion drawn from it as a premise is invalid.

You have to ignore the word "hypothesis" (twice) and then "assuming" to arrive at the conclusion that there was "no suggestion". The assumption that there is a reality is not the same as saying that science is the search for what that reality is.

Just because you can't see it does not mean anything about the veracity of the statement. Our understanding of the cosmos is incomplete. There is no guarantee that it will ever be otherwise. Math is not science

So what? A lot of people do the work they do because they enjoy it. I fail to see how that has any bearing on the validity of the work, or how this impacts the issue of whether science is attempting to find reality.

And we understand why the math works. Nevertheless, it was replaced after a mechanism was found. What if you don't ignore the first paragraph of the article? As to the rest, this is not the place to discuss details. presumably these are the best examples you have, seeing as they do not support your claim, are you willing to modify or retract?

I was not a participant in that discussion. Epicycles were abandoned after a mechanism was identified. You said not the best fit. What is the better fit for dark energy and dark matter? They are placeholders. There can't be alternatives as they do not represent anything resembling a theory.

Do you have some examples of science not being the best fit, and still conforming to the protocols of science? Making ideas fit to our notions, to please us, is regularly rejected by science.

What relevance does that have to the discussion?

Interesting that you can be rather sure of this despite having scientists say otherwise, supported by examples.

Attacker has been banned as another sockpuppet of rstormview (joining Conway2 and ronnie33)

Then show that your model is valid. No, but you have to actually do science to be a scientist.

Scientists, for one. It would be a difficult argument to make that people who have little understanding of science being the ones who define this. I think many scientists could tell you horror stories of what happens when such people are put in managerial positions in charge of science programs.

I think that you can only claim that one of us exists, since you could be hallucinating the rest. Depending on how you define reality, this is not true. Science studies the behavior of nature, not its reality. Physics quite blatantly uses models that have no claim to representing anything real, in order to predict behavior.

David Levy is banned for repeated violations of both thread hijacking and re-introduction of closed topics, with no modification of behavior despite warnings and a suspension.

frankglennjacobs@gmail.com has been suspended a week for continuing to post "SWEG" treatises, despite being told not to.

forex has been suspended for repeatedly re-opening closed topics.

There is no data to interpret for quantum gravity or string theory.

You make different assumptions about what's going on. One model of gravity was that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. That was rejected once it was tested. But there is no room for a different interpretation of the results; under gravity alone objects fall with the same acceleration.

AFAIK the holographic principle is (currently) an untestable part of an untestable theory. So I don't see where interpretation comes into it.

With the caveat that we are not here to discuss the particulars or alternatives, consider the Michelson-Morely experiment. You expect to measure a fringe shift based on 30 km/s of motion. You measure basically zero. There is no room for interpretation here, in the context of what the experiment was designed to do. It rejects the model. That show the power of models and science's habit of quantifying results. True, but you should have known how much data you need. Part of "well-designed" is knowing kind of signal/noise you need and whether you can reach the required precision. But — and your comment leads me to this point — the broader picture is that in science the avenue of doing a better measurement is open to you.

Turn this around: if the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways you are either leaning away from science and toward philosophy (i.e. your model is lacking) or your experiment was not designed very well. A good experiment tied in with a precise model should not leave you with interpretations to mull.

Since they are largely non-overlapping areas of inquiry, the answer is almost by definition "yes"

Roger Dynamic Motion has been put in stasis for a week for repeatedly violating our advertising rules and thread hijacking. ———— coded has been banned as a sockpuppet of Tom O'Neil

Pymander has been suspended a week for thread hijacking and repeated soapboxing. This is a discussion site, not a pulpit.