The essence of the scientific method is that it is based on being able to repeat results. If you get the same results every time you do the same operation, and when anyone else who repeats it get the same result, you can safely conclude that you have a scientific explanation. But quantum mechanics says no, you have to assume everything happens with a probability but not with a 100% certainty. It's always statistical only. The two views are not compatible. Now that gives us a problem, because QM breaks science. Yet physicists tell us that QM is real. Basically they are implying we cannot trust science anymore. I realized this tonight when I realized that quantum connectivity might mean that sympathetic magic might have a real basis, but would be very hard to prove as it would be probabilistic in operation. Holy smoke. Might we want to rethink parts of old-time magic after all? Something to ponder.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
According to you, predicting that a dice doesn't always show the same number would be impossible to do in a scientific setting.
You think that probability calculations are impossible or unscientific?
Predicting that an outcome will be uncertain may be a valid model but is hardly useful since the causality is random.
I predict that you will spout blather but I cannot be certain what you will spout. It may be a function of how many empty open cans of Bud Light are lying on your floor.
Would you advance medicine by promoting a vaccine whose effect is random, ranging from harmless to killing the recipient? Hardly scientific.
This is where probabilities are important. If it's much more probable to die of the infection than from the vaccine, it's advisable to use the vaccine in case if a highly infectious disease.
Do you understand what I wrote there? Do you find vaccines only acceptable if they are completely harmless?
Can you actually make a point? Can you in your own words summarise the Scientific Method?
"Do you find vaccines only acceptable if they are completely harmless?"
Thanks for declaring your position on the left.
BTW, Eisenhorn's Reddit account is IronEagleV. Pretty sure. Even on Reddit he gets pretty roundly mocked. LOL
That statement makes no sense. What do you mean?