Perhaps now we may now once again open up this section to all and sundry releasing it from the ridiculous imposition that anything posted here must conform to current scientific thinking. Current scientific thinking is often short lived.
It's the Handbrake Turn Effect, doesn't inspire confidence in plebs like me. See also Impending Ice Age Morphs To Global Warming In A Relatively Short Lifetime, (mine). People in white coats just like scaring folk. :-)
Just new guidance, really, that posts in the science board should be broadly scientific in their content. Although Naomi insists this is about dogma it's actually more to do with methodology, ie presenting ideas that have overwhelming evidence against them is clearly unscientific.
The wording atop the science section reads ‘ remove answers that are misleading, e.g. by implying that a statement is a scientific theory or law when it is not’
Not explicitly, bit since scientific laws are, by definition, those who have met the relevant methodological test, then method still remains the clear dividing factor.
//bit since scientific laws are, by definition, those who have met the relevant methodological test, then method still remains the clear dividing factor.//
when the facts change I change my mind
what do you do
J N Keynes
try reading Kuhn the structure of scientific revolutions
"Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science."
I am not sure if the new planet thingey is going to lead to a scientific revolution
in fact I cant think of one in the 2000's (an oops back to the drawing board moment)
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.