Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Bad science: Forked Thread: Heroes: (Volume Three: Villains) The Second Coming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4483501" data-attributes="member: 710"><p>No, that is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic is that it makes predictions you can test. In essence, the fact that you could go and try to falsify (disprove) is its defining characteristic. </p><p>For example, Newtons Laws make predictions about planetare movement. We can measure them and see if the predictions fit. They did in most cases, but some differed, so it meant the theory was either wrong or we missed something. (And both was true - we missed something, explaining some measurements consistent with the theory once we accounted those objects, but there were still errors we couldn't explain, until Einstein provided us with a new theory that could also explain these measurements. And then he predicted even more, and those predictions where also tested, one requiring a Solar Eclipse to allow us to observe something his theory predicted)</p><p></p><p>That's one of the problems of the string theories - they give models to describe something but they don't give us predictions we could test. </p><p></p><p>It's not possible to prove scientific theories. You can prove math, but not science. Math starts with a set of defined axioms and rules that are defined as true, and from there you don't make predictions, you use rules of logic to gain new formulas. </p><p>In science we don't have this fixed point. We use math to model the world, but there we have to make assumptions on what the axioms of our model are. (Most basic assumptions are stuff like "conversation of energy and momenum"). From there we create a formula and use that to predict something in the real world. If the prediction holds true, the assumptions we used might be correct. But maybe the next experiment will show an error, and we have to revise our assumptions (the model axioms).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4483501, member: 710"] No, that is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic is that it makes predictions you can test. In essence, the fact that you could go and try to falsify (disprove) is its defining characteristic. For example, Newtons Laws make predictions about planetare movement. We can measure them and see if the predictions fit. They did in most cases, but some differed, so it meant the theory was either wrong or we missed something. (And both was true - we missed something, explaining some measurements consistent with the theory once we accounted those objects, but there were still errors we couldn't explain, until Einstein provided us with a new theory that could also explain these measurements. And then he predicted even more, and those predictions where also tested, one requiring a Solar Eclipse to allow us to observe something his theory predicted) That's one of the problems of the string theories - they give models to describe something but they don't give us predictions we could test. It's not possible to prove scientific theories. You can prove math, but not science. Math starts with a set of defined axioms and rules that are defined as true, and from there you don't make predictions, you use rules of logic to gain new formulas. In science we don't have this fixed point. We use math to model the world, but there we have to make assumptions on what the axioms of our model are. (Most basic assumptions are stuff like "conversation of energy and momenum"). From there we create a formula and use that to predict something in the real world. If the prediction holds true, the assumptions we used might be correct. But maybe the next experiment will show an error, and we have to revise our assumptions (the model axioms). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Bad science: Forked Thread: Heroes: (Volume Three: Villains) The Second Coming
Top