You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.
We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.
-
I am glad I do not have to worry about falsification. Making multiple predictions has a name in my dictionary - called consistency, lends a lot of value. So predictions, consistency and falsifiability huh. It will be hard to give a falsifiability argument in this case, and I think getting the consistency part could be hard as well.user12196– user121962017-07-23 06:35:57 +00:00Commented Jul 23, 2017 at 6:35
-
But, I would definitely need to reproduce my results right. Under the same circumstances if it yields the same exact result then the theory is absolutely correct and I am not missing out any factor? Is that approach correct? Must be.. Finding hard to argue vs. that. Please confirm though if you can. Thanks!user12196– user121962017-07-23 06:48:51 +00:00Commented Jul 23, 2017 at 6:48
-
Plus, yeah it should be extremely difficult to get absolutely non data peeking priori. Some peeking is of course required, but it is generally minimal, or prediction quality is good right?user12196– user121962017-07-23 06:56:01 +00:00Commented Jul 23, 2017 at 6:56
-
It depends on what you mean by your theory being absolute correct. I could flip a coin and see heads, and make a theory that the coin will always land heads. If I get heads the next time I flip, this doesn't guarantee I'm right. As another example, Newtonian mechanics makes great predictions for things our size, but doesn't work well for objects at speeds close to light speed or at the subatomic and cosmic scales. I would happily say Newtonian mechanics aren't wrong though in the sense that for many purposes they make great predictions, and that is science to me.Franz– Franz2017-07-23 07:03:12 +00:00Commented Jul 23, 2017 at 7:03
-
I think you are wrong there. All physical theories are not guaranteed to be right whether it be QM, or relativity or tossing coins. You are only giving the coin toss example because you know it a priori.user12196– user121962017-07-23 07:06:13 +00:00Commented Jul 23, 2017 at 7:06
|
Show 15 more comments
How to Edit
- Correct minor typos or mistakes
- Clarify meaning without changing it
- Add related resources or links
- Always respect the author’s intent
- Don’t use edits to reply to the author
How to Format
-
create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
``` -
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
``` - put returns between paragraphs
- for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
- _italic_ or **bold**
- quote by placing > at start of line
- to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>[example](https://example.com)<a href="https://example.com">example</a>
How to Tag
A tag is a keyword or label that categorizes your question with other, similar questions. Choose one or more (up to 5) tags that will help answerers to find and interpret your question.
- complete the sentence: my question is about...
- use tags that describe things or concepts that are essential, not incidental to your question
- favor using existing popular tags
- read the descriptions that appear below the tag
If your question is primarily about a topic for which you can't find a tag:
- combine multiple words into single-words with hyphens (e.g. philosophy-of-science), up to a maximum of 35 characters
- creating new tags is a privilege; if you can't yet create a tag you need, then post this question without it, then ask the community to create it for you