Strange

Nonsense. I am not sure that learning C will help with very much with Lisp, Haskell, Prolog, Cobol or even Fortran. On the other hand, if you learn one procedural language, then some principles of other procedural languages will be clear. But it will make learning a functional or declarative language more difficult.

Why isn't it used, then?

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not your blog or a place to publish scientific papers. I left the abstract. If you want to discuss your idea you are free to do that. If you want your paper published then submit it to a journal. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. What do you want to discuss?

Today I learned that Buzz Aldrin's mother's maiden name was ... Moon ! Evidence for the epigenetic effect of nominative determinism?

The bit about swans comes from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability It is an excellent example of why one should not rely on Wikipedia as a primary source. There is some quite good discussion on the Talk page, some of which clarifies what is there. (But I haven't read enough of it to be sure I would trust it, either.)

Yep. That is exactly what makes the sentence falsifiable. (Even before any non-white swans had been seen.) I’m not sure what you are struggling with. If you want to test a statement about the colour of swans then the minimum requirement is to see the colour of swans. (Testable = falsifiable) Nice example. This does remind me of when I was studying logic and some of the other students could not get theirs round the concept that an argument could be logically sound but still not be true. That article is just badly worded. Get over it. I note you are still not able to provide a reference.

The fact that you can count swan’s eyes is what makes it falsifiable. As it is impossible to check every Sean that ever lived or will live, all you can do is hope to find a swan with one or three eyes to disprove the hypothesis. Says the guy who doesn’t even know the difference between “falsify” and “falsifiable”.

How about this: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

For someone banging on about clarity etc, I’m rather surprised you haven’t provided a reference. I agree that the first bit of text you quote appears pretty bad. But as I don’t know where it is from, I can’t say much more. That is a hypothesis not a theory. It is falsifiable because we can specify ways of testing it. As it happens, these show that the hypothesis is false. Which it is why it is not a theory. You seem to confusing “falsified” with “falsifiable” The idea here is that you only need one example to disprove something (eg your room without a green unicorn) but it is much harder to prove something. Let’s say you have looked in every room in your house and, yes, there is a green unicorn there (obviously, this is just to explain the point). Then you check every room in every building in your town. Yep, the hypothesis still holds. You check every room in your country and then on the planet. Still no rooms without green unicorns. But by now, thousands of new buildings have gone up; they all need to be checked. And can you be certain that there weren’t some secret or hidden rooms you missed. And what about buildings on other planets (if they exist). It is usually impossible or impractical to test something exhaustively. So science more often relies on finding a counter-example, rather than trying to confirm every possible case. Good. I think you need to go and chill out

Unless you are a stage magician!

Ahmedtorah banned as a sock puppet of Ahmed Torah RichardFWhite has been banned as a sockpuppet of previously banned members MeredithLesly, BlueSpike, Frank_Baker and LisaLiel

To do ... Doo be doo be doo ...

"I know I left it here somewhere"

First, do no harm

This is probably an example of "confirmation bias". How often do you think of people and not getting a message from them? You don't know, do you? Because you only remember the few occasions when the coincidence seems remarkable. That is why science relies on objective measurements rather than anecdotes.

A scientific answer to what? Why so many people are attracted to post to idiotic threads like this one?

Where do you get that from? That would be almost triple the population in 5 years. I don't think that is biologically possible. The current UN prediction is "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100" https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

This is a nice interactive version: http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table I particularly like the temperature slider.

Do you have evidence or calculations to support that, or is it just something you believe.

And robert.brown

hipster doofus suspended for 3 days for repeatedly spamming the forum with their pet idea

Get a poster of the Periodic Table (may be able to pick one up cheap on Ebay) so you can see the relationships between elements. For the moment, the reasons for the structure of the table doesn't matter but one day you can both lean about that. There is always more to learn from the table. When you find out something about one element you can look up similar elements. For example, table salt is sodium chloride. From the Periodic Table we can see that there should be a similar compound, potassium chloride. There is, and it is used as a salt substitute but is toxic in large doses. Or when you find out that hydrogen sulphide smells of rotten eggs, you can find out that selenium sulphide smells unbearably worse. And tellurium sulphide even worse than that. As kids (and adults) love extreme smells and explosions, here is a link to a series of blog posts by an industrial chemist on "things I won't work with": https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/things-i-wont-work-with There are some great descriptions of just quite how appallingly smelly or dangerous some compounds are.

Why does that need an entire section of the forum? It comes up occasionally in the Philosophy section (which is probably the best place for it) or the Speculations forum. It is kicked around a bit. And then people lose interest until the next time. I will point out that it is not falsifiable and so: (a) it is not science and (b) if you want to believe it is true, then no one can prove you wrong. I really can't see what there is to discuss or why anyone would find it interesting. See also, solipsism and Last Thursdayism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

1. There is no reason to think that the universe is empty beyond the observable universe. 2. We cannot observe anything outside the observable universe. By definition. I think you should get o grips with current science before making up nonsense.