An Exotic Rhumba
Knecht
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.3286v1.pdf
This exotic rhumba featuring the simultaneous juggling of many
mathematical glass beads is impressive and fiercely intimidating.
The question that strikes me, however, is whether there is an even
remote chance that the bulk of this intellectual pile could be tested
in any definitive manner, as might be expected of scientific research?
Peter Harding
Quite possibly, by people of the professor's calibre rather than your
own evidently.
Androcles
"Peter Harding" <har...@herald.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:he6fvf$mks$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
Miserable whining bastards like you have no calibre, evidently.
Peter Harding
Oh well, everything the Prof said is therefore obviously rubbish. That's
the usual standard of disproof that keeps people like you happy, isn't
it? Proper science.
Knecht
>
> Oh well, everything the Prof said is therefore obviously rubbish. That's
> the usual standard of disproof that keeps people like you happy, isn't
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to keep the evolution of scientific knowledge
honest and healthy, then Definitive Predictions are a
sine qua non [mandatory requirement].
Definitive predictions are:
Made PRIOR to the testing.
Are FEASIBLE.
Are QUANTITATIVE.
Are NON-ADJUSTABLE [no fudge, please].
Are UNIQUE to the theory being tested.
String Theory, the Multiverse of 10^10000 random universes,
Boltzmann Brains, Anthropic Reasoning, most
quantum gravity theories, etc., etc., etc.,...,
are not testable in a definitive manner.
They are untestable pseudoscience.
Ask the proponents of these theories to specifically identify
and defend the Definitive Predictions of their Glass Bead Game
theories and watch the squirming start, the beads of sweat forming
on the high foreheads.
Time to get back to traditional science: study nature
[not get intoxicated with abstract mathematics], identify
empirical patterns, derive definitive predictions based on
the identified patterns, test the predictions, and accept the
results [if you look everywhere in the world for magnetic monopoles
and the results are relentlessly negative, then assume
they probably do not exist].
Yours in real, testable science [not post-modern pseudoscience],
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Peter Harding" <har...@herald.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:he6fvf$mks$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>> Knecht wrote:
>>>> Here is the link:
>>>>
>>>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.3286v1.pdf
>>>>
>>>> This exotic rhumba featuring the simultaneous juggling of many
>>>> mathematical glass beads is impressive and fiercely intimidating.
>>>>
>>>> The question that strikes me, however, is whether there is an even
>>>> remote chance that the bulk of this intellectual pile could be tested
>>>> in any definitive manner, as might be expected of scientific research?
>>> Quite possibly, by people of the professor's calibre rather than your
>>> own evidently.
>>
>> Miserable whining bastards like you have no calibre, evidently.
>
> Oh well, everything the Prof said is therefore obviously rubbish.
And how did you evidently conclude that, miserable whining bastard
of evidently no calibre, oh well?