Re:The Phrase "No Evidence" Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Co...
by wongarsu on Monday January 08, 2024 @08:28AM
(#38911605)
It also rules out game theory as a science. Which might be fine if you think that math isn't a science, but then you have to resort to physical experiments to collect scientific evidence that 100 + 2 is indeed 102.
Re:The Phrase "No Evidence" Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Co...
by Almondsetat on Monday January 08, 2024 @08:59AM
(#38911970)
100 + 2 doesn't exist in reality so...
Re:The Phrase "No Evidence" Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Co...
by awwaiid on Monday January 08, 2024 @08:32AM
(#38911657)
I think they call that chemistry and it is indeed an important part.
Re:The Phrase "No Evidence" Is a Red Flag for Bad Science Co...
by CoastalCoder on Monday January 08, 2024 @10:31AM
(#38913363)
> For any reasonable definition of scientific evidence, there is a lot of evidence for almost everything.
Slight tangent, but I've seen a similar thing when trying to decide which religion, if any, is true:
Every one I looked at had at least a few very intelligent, seemingly rational adherents. It seems like there's a subjective element to what evidence each person finds persuasive.
2. This gets back to the point Scott is making - now define "scientific evidence". For any reasonable definition of scientific evidence, there is a lot of evidence for almost everything. I can find scientific evidence for aliens if I want to - to a terribly low standard, true enough - although what Scott picked on was homeopathy which works a bit better.
People underestimate lies, damn lies and statistics. There are facts that back up any worldview, no matter how insane. Carl could find scientific evidence to back up his theory. There'll be anomalous weather station readings, weird sounds, academics papers published by crazy academics that kinda support him. We've all met monomaniacal people; they aren't shy of finding scientific evidence for their case. Still bunk though.