PSA: A list of basic facts

[Anonymous No.10487702]

>The Earth is round (oblate spheroids are round)
>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans
>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>"I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. It only shows that you don't know what you're talking about
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory

For the know-it-alls who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity. "Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read this popsci article > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

[Anonymous No.10487715]

>>10487702
>>vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
vaccines are medicine. Vaccines don't describe reality, they are an application of our understanding of reality.

[Anonymous No.10487718]

>>10487715
you could also say that there is a good deal of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism

[Anonymous No.10487723]

The next person who starts a thread with 'correct and incomplete description of reality' should be permanently banned from this website.

[Anonymous No.10487726]

>>10487702
>>The Earth is flat is a correct and incomplete descriptions of reality

[Anonymous No.10487730]

>>10487702
>first read this popsci article > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Kill yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.10487734]

>>10487730
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10487737]

>>10487734
>Why the homophobia?
Homophobia is a correct and incomplete description of reality

[Anonymous No.10487744]

>By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity.
Every single model is correct using this definition, I just need to test the null experiment.

>"Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.
Literally every fucking theory we will ever make won't encompass the entire universe

"correct and incomplete" as you use it encompass the entire set of physical theories
it is literally a meaningless term, it distinguishes nothing whatsoever

[Anonymous No.10487788]

>>10487718
>vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of not causing autism

[Anonymous No.10487838]

>>10487734
>homophobia
Why the Islamophobia?

[Anonymous No.10487850]

>>10487702
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans

Climate change is correct and incomplete description of reality.


FTFY

[Anonymous No.10487856]

probabilistic models by definition have inferior predictability than deterministic models
choosing a probabilistic model over an equivalent deterministic model is a choice motivated by politics not utility

[Anonymous No.10487881]

>>10487856
in other words it is intellectually dishonest to believe in the utility of having both probabilistic models and deterministic models as the argument for the choice of one over the other is true or false for all possible models.

no one would argue a probabilistic version of newtons laws would be more useful compared to its deterministic formulation. The copenhagen interpretation would be unanimously considered mental gymnastics if science had not been institutionalized by economic funding becoming the guiding hand of work instead of the desire for knowledge. Science is about prediction where Scientism is about buying belief

[Anonymous No.10487899]

>>10487702
>>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
My fucking sides, the sad thing is nobody will realize this

[Anonymous No.10487901]

>>10487702
>>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
My fucking sides. The sad thing is nobody will realize what you did here.

[Anonymous No.10487903]

>>10487702
good job reposting this regularly and triggering retards

[Anonymous No.10487905]

>>10487744
>Literally every fucking theory we will ever make won't encompass the entire universe

Yes, that is how science works. You need to have a domain of validity. Maybe one day we can extend this domain to entire observable universe and even speculate about what is happening beyond that. But that is about it.

[Anonymous No.10488051]

>>10487744
>every fucking theory we will ever make
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.10488762]

>>10487856
>>10487881
If the laws of physics are fundamentally stochastic, then you are forced to make your model include probabilities you brainlet. We aren't making up the laws of physics we're discovering how the universe works. In the end there will be a single theory that explains how it works, if how it works requires and is built up from stochastic objects then that is what you have to accept.
ALL deterministic interpretations of QM require postulating made up bullshit that is untestable and only there to shoehorn determinism into the behavior of the system. The logical and proper theory is a stochastic one. Newtonian mechanics are wrong btw, they do not accurately predict anything, they are always slightly off by a small real number.

[Anonymous No.10489233]

>>10488762
Dropping by to add in that nobody's been able to make pilot wave relativistic for a century. There is no competitive deterministic theory.

[Anonymous No.10489325]

>>10487702
Stop doing this - it's bad for the scientific community because you block off any discussion

[Anonymous No.10490073]

>>10487702
>Scientism
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.10490165]

[Anonymous No.10490305]

>>10488762
>If the laws of physics are fundamentally stochastic
no that is the scientism interpretation of the measurement problem. The measurement problem can be explained as inherent stochasm or by the fact you cannot create a unit of measurement objective to a sytem within said system. The same way any deterministic model could be interpreted as stochastic.
As I said determinism is by definition more useful regarding predictability than stochasm so by choosing the interpretation of indeterminism you are not doing science (finding the most useful thing to believe) you are doing scientism (forcing the belief you want)

>>10489233
The particles in bohm de broglie don't violate general or special relativity nor qft
the wavefunction does but that doesn't matter because it is non local to the particles it guides.

The choice of indeterminism over non locality would never have been made if it wasn't for 20th century scientists being economically incentivised to believe it. It is not science it institutionalism designed to maintain the narrative of energy scarcity

[Anonymous No.10490318]

do you people not realize simply changing your belief from indeterminism to determinism gives the guiding waveform mechanical properties allowing it to be manipulated as easily as mariah carey manipulates the air to annoy you every December

[Anonymous No.10490920]

>>10487702
>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
This is incorrect in the context in which it is used. The failure of SETI was evidence of the absence of aliens and the failure of the search for WMDS in Iraq was evidence of their absence.

[Anonymous No.10490930]

>>10490305
Making up a literally untestable non local field that violates relativity and is only there in order to hold onto determinism is far more "scientism" (to use your word) than accepting fundamental stochastic processes.
Also: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05677

[Anonymous No.10490952]

>>10490165
Definition 1 is bullshit. Into the bin it goes.

[Anonymous No.10491111]

>>10490952
Maybe, but I would have to agree with the results of the proof. For example, I think that I might have mice in my house. I hire a specialist, and they search my house completely for mice, but find no signs of them. They have found an absence of evidence. They have not proved the absence of mice, but they have given evidence for the absence of mice. If I thought that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I would be just as worried that there are mice in my house, despite a thorough investigation finding none.

[Anonymous No.10491117]

>>10491111
>the proof is wrong but it makes me feel good so I agree with it

[Anonymous No.10491124]

>>10490920
>This is incorrect in the context in which it is used. The failure of SETI was evidence of the absence of aliens and the failure of the search for WMDS in Iraq was evidence of their absence.
>limiting yapplicable context to that of a popscientist and a politician
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10491138]

>>10491124
>the two most widely known examples of use of the phrase is "limiting context"
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10491141]

>>10490952
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10491270]

>>10491138
>>the two most widely known examples of use of the phrase is "limiting context"
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.10491271]

>>10490952
>Definition 1 is bullshit. Into the bin it goes.
So are definitions 2 & 3.

[Anonymous No.10491333]

>>10487856
>probabilistic models by definition have inferior predictability than deterministic models
Determinism is literally a meme.

[Anonymous No.10491421]

>>10491111
yeah but the whole problem with this argument is that you're skipping the part where you question whether the specialist was a total retard

[Anonymous No.10492511]

>>10490930
>chooses the model with less utility because he doesn't like the implications of the more useful model
>posts an article he didn't read instead of making an argument because the abstract says what he wants to be true but it turns out the article defines nonlocal as a subset of all nonlocal theories that fail their test and then act surprised when the models fail their test. pic related

[Anonymous No.10492537]

>>10492511
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05677
>some non local theories are wrong
mfw

[Anonymous No.10493373]

>>10487838
>Islamophobia
Why the antisemitism?

[Anonymous No.10494485]

>>10492511
>>chooses the model with less utility because he doesn't like the implications of the more useful model
i dont care about implications, you are postulating a field that violates relativity and that is untestable because you don't like the implications of the other model. You are philosophically tied to determinism due to some weird "muh predictability" (which isn't what science is about btw) rather than accepting the data and evidence against your position. I am not philosophically tied to determinism or non determinism, I don't care about either of them. But evidence shows there is no determinism, so I go with that.

[Anonymous No.10494565]

>>10494485
tell me in your own words what "science is about"

[Anonymous No.10494762]

>>10494485
the field doesn't violate relativity because it's non local. Relativity is a description of some of the characteristics of the interactions between particles.

there is no evidence to choose between determinism and stochasm and there never can be because if you are in a deterministic system you cannot construct a measuring stick objective to that system from that system. That leaves us with a choice to believe determinism or not which means deterministic beliefs always win out because they are by definition more useful at prediction giving the people that believe them an evolutionary advantage. ie the better you can predict the more power you have.

In 1000 years advocates of the Copenhagen interpretation will be remembered like as if people were trying to push for probabilistic Newtonian theories.
The only reason the Copenhagen interpretation is even a thing is because of the Rockefeller institute paying scientists to perpetuate it

[Anonymous No.10495147]

>>10494762
>because of the Rockefeller institute paying scientists to perpetuate it
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10495148]

>>10493373
>antisemitism
Why the anti-West?

[Anonymous No.10495176]

>>10495147

[Anonymous No.10496571]

>vaccines are safe because we assume safety
Vaccines in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.10496594]

>>10494762
You will never make better predictions with deterministic interpretations of QM, both because as you said yourself, you wouldn't even be able to make an objective measuring stick in the first place, but also because it's fundamentally NOT DETERMINISTIC so you will never be able to make it anyway. You are literally admitting to be ideologically motivated. A freaking non local field that is not relativistic and can't be tested just to have determinism. You're literally saying a field that we can never see and that has no local properties is "there" in order to "guide" things that are so much easier to understand as jsut mists of probabilities that are actually THERE, but simply can only be analyzed deterministically when there are a lot of them so their behavior goes to the expected value.

[Anonymous No.10496662]

>>10487726
Given the Earth's radius, it's Gaussian curvature is way less than 10^(-14), so you could say it's essencially flat

[Anonymous No.10496707]

>>10496594
Limited measurement accuracy =/= indeterminism
>It's fundamentally not deterministic.
there is no evidence of this nor can there ever be
>A freaking non local field that is not relativistic
Something nonlocal is by definition not relativistic its cringe everytime someone specifies it, like needing to clarify up is not down.
>cant be tested
I dont know why you think it cant be tested all the mechanical properties of the wave can be inferred from the particles. Same way you can tell where a shooter was by studying a bullet impact.

[Anonymous No.10497084]

>>10487702
>The Earth is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Faster-than-light communication is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>Climate change is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>"I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science is a correct and incomplete description of reality

[Anonymous No.10497265]

Scientism is the only true metaphysics. If you disagree you are either evil or deluded. Or both.

[Anonymous No.10497277]

It is a sad fact that the only place nowadays I can say that I love science (aka scientism) is on an anonymous board.
FUCK YOU SCIENCE HATER NIGGERS!

[Anonymous No.10497281]

FUCK YOU (((POPPER))), (((KUHN))) AND OTHER SCIENCE HATERS

[Anonymous No.10497532]

>[math]\sin{x} = x[/math] is a correct and incomplete description of reality

[Anonymous No.10498258]

>>10496707
You are an ideologue and you are pathetic