Almost all modern science is speculative and not based on empirical evidence, even "classical mechanic"

It's like symbol of faith, that canonized and becomes acsiomatics for sciense, "postulats", "laws", "blablabla". Looks like something "serious".

For mass

23 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

Almost all modern science is speculative and not based on empirical evidence, even "classical mechanic"

That is an example of a logical fallacy. I think it can be placed into the category of Informal fallacies, Fallacies of presumption. It can probably also fit Shifting of the burden of proof (onus probandi)

Someone with more skills in logic may be able to fill in.

 

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That is an example of a logical fallacy. I think it can be placed into the category of Informal fallacies, Fallacies of presumption. It can probably also fit Shifting of the burden of proof (onus probandi)

Someone with more skills in logic may be able to fill in.

Everything is simpler: in *real* science there are no unproven statements, the whole basis is derived from experience and is its generalization

It's the principles that was before the middle of XX century, at least as an ideal of at least natural science

The very time when science really bore fruit, and not just regular publications of fairy tales about black holes

4 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

Almost all modern science is speculative and not based on empirical evidence, even "classical mechanic"

It's like symbol of faith, that canonized and becomes acsiomatics for sciense, "postulats", "laws", "blablabla". Looks like something "serious".

For mass

!

Moderator Note

This is a listed example of a bad-faith argument in our rules.

 

Quote

Everything is simpler: in *real* science there are no unproven statements, the whole basis is derived from experience and is its generalization

!

Moderator Note

Spectacularly wrong. One might think you are trolling.

 

In any event, hijacking threads to bash science without supporting arguments violates multiple rules