/sci/ - Science & Math

Depends who's doing the experiment and on preconception(a mind thing). Otherwise you might just prove some negative factor of what is. Such as water being H2 rather than H2O

>>15449028
Proving a negative is still an experimentally validated outcome.

It's also a derp herf herpa perp

honestly

DONT REPLY TO ME. DONT REPLY IN JEST WITH WHAT I'VE SAID AGAIN

>>15449006
covid vaccines were "experimentally validated"

>>15449071
Correct, validated to be safe and effective (unironically).

>>15449006
Did professionals do experiments the "I" who made the original comment, yet you still believe "I" exists? No? Curious.
I'm very observant

>>15449077
Go to /his/ if you want to do useless philosophy with no real world results.

I won't believe it even though it's experimentally validated.

>>15449080
Then you're wrong. Hope you're okay with walking around every day knowing you're wrong.

>>15449080
This is correct unless the experiment is wise. You don't just experiment on a thing, you also have to aim at parts that are crucial.

>>15449079
You believe that /his/ exists yet it hasn't been peer reviewed by scientists? Curious.
I'm very observant.

>>15449084
Nonsense. Drone.

>>15449092
The internet was experimentally validated. Check mate.

>>15449006
That's nice, but you don't have to "believe" anything, even if it is "experimentally validated". You can work with an unfalsifiable hypothesis to lead you to something that can be experimentally validated, as is often the case. Might leave you with a mystery gap in your knowledge, as is so often the case with the science behind practical devices we all use today, but in addition to the fact that there's always going to be some gaps to fill (the god of gaps is infinite in scope), such an approach still leads to useful predictions and inventions.

Whoever invented the wheel did not consider electron shell convergence nor frictionless vacuums, nor did he question the fact that rounded rocks roll down hill more reliably than rough ones, even if he'd never experimentally verified it himself. Men build on the knowledge of those before them, without re-verifying every discovery along the way, only regressing and rechecking when something doesn't add up, or as part of the education process.

>>15449006
It has been experimentally verified that doing drugs helps you lose weight and increase productivity. Therefore you should use cocaine and testosterone and start a youtube channel to show everyone how hard working and masculine you are thanks to your mindset, diet, weightlifting routine and books about stoicism.

>>15449106
I had physics in mind, specifically.

>>15449101
>He thinks the law of noncontradiction has been experimentally proven and not just granted

>>15449124
It's all very true of physics. There's shitloads of things we don't understand but can nonetheless build practical and accurate predictions on.

It's not a matter of belief, but ability to build logically from even an entirely fictional foundation into a working reality. You re-examine your foundation only once the predictions stop working, or, again, as part of the education process. Rechecking foundational theories is typically postgrad work, however redundant they sometimes complain it is.

>>15449137
Sounds like you cited this straight from a crackademic lecture you non intellectual figurehead.

>>15449006
based and proofpilled