Interesting and Humour - page 3047
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Science differs from myths, beliefs, fairy tales and other fantasy in that every claim in it is experimentally substantiated....
Science differs from myths, beliefs, fairy tales and other fantasies in that any statement in it is substantiated experimentally. As long as the hypothesis is not confirmed by experimental data (preferably many times) it will remain a hypothesis, no matter how beautiful it may be...
You are evidently very far from science if you really think so. At the core of any science, any theory, is a given set of axioms. These axioms within the framework of this science and the theories they describe can be neither proved nor disproved. They are unprovable, and the only thing to do is simply to believe in them. If you believe that Euclid's fifth axiom always holds, there is no non-Euclidean geometry for you. If you believe that the fifth axiom is valid only in Euclidean space, then Riemann geometry or spherical geometry become available to you.
As for the experiment, it cannot prove the truth of the hypothesis. The only thing an experiment can do is to prove the incompleteness of its axioms on which it rests. Then the hypothesis is either supplemented by new axioms (as was the case with Ptolemy's system in its time), or it is disproved. The problem is that any hypothesis is not complete. That is, there will be at least one statement which cannot be proved or disproved by a given theory. In the world of physics this would mean that there is at least one experiment that a theory cannot explain, even if it is a Theory of Everything.
I can drop some object from a great height and see that it does not deflect sideways during its movement. This experiment is like telling us that the Earth is not spinning on its axis, but standing still. Because otherwise the object would deviate from the Earth's system of coordinates. This experiment can be performed thousands of times and each time it will show the same thing. So what does our experiment actually show or prove? The example seems naive, but it is so only because we now have heaps of knowledge about how the Earth spins and what an observer feels in his or her coordinate system. However, for a few hundred years there was none of this and many scientists believed that the Earth was standing still.
As a result, the experiment can at best be in the service of a hypothesis. Outside the framework of hypotheses, the experiment is meaningless (as in the case of throwing a stone from a tower). And the hypothesis itself is in the service of our faith, because without faith no axiom can be accepted. So it turns out that we try to prove our faith with various experiments and hypotheses.
You must be very far from science if you really think so. Any science, any theory, is based on a given set of axioms. These axioms, within the framework of that science itself and the theories they describe, can neither be proved nor disproved. They are unprovable, and the only thing to do is simply to believe in them. If you believe that Euclid's fifth axiom always holds, there is no non-Euclidean geometry for you. If you believe that the fifth axiom is valid only in Euclidean space, then Riemann geometry or spherical geometry become available to you.
As for the experiment, it cannot prove the truth of the hypothesis. The only thing an experiment can do is to prove the incompleteness of its axioms on which it rests. Then the hypothesis is either supplemented by new axioms (as was the case with Ptolemy's system in its time), or it is disproved. The problem is that any hypothesis is not complete. That is, there will be at least one statement which cannot be proved or disproved by a given theory. In the world of physics this would mean that there is at least one experiment that a theory cannot explain, even if it is a Theory of Everything.
I can drop some object from a great height and see that it does not deflect sideways during its movement. This experiment is like telling us that the Earth is not spinning on its axis, but standing still. Because otherwise the object would deviate from the Earth's system of coordinates. This experiment can be performed thousands of times and each time it will show the same thing. So what does our experiment actually show or prove? The example seems naive, but it is so only because we now have heaps of knowledge about how the Earth spins and what an observer feels in his or her coordinate system. However, for a few hundred years there was none of this and many scientists believed that the Earth was standing still.
As a result, the experiment can at best be in the service of a hypothesis. Outside the framework of hypotheses, the experiment is meaningless (as in the case of throwing a stone from a tower). And the hypothesis itself is in the service of our faith, because without faith no axiom can be accepted. So it turns out that we try to prove our faith with various experiments and hypotheses.
On the subject of science:
Nature: Hungarian physicists talk of discovering 'nature's fifth force'
https://news.mail.ru/society/25909719/?frommail=10
Baikal State University library replaces book covers with mock descriptions
"So: and Peter the Great had to solve this problem - how to attract readers. He took an unorthodox solution. His conversation with the Procurator-General, recorded in documents, is well known. I will not quote exactly, but it sounded something like this. The Tsar asked the Attorney General whether he should charge money for entry. He replied that of course it was necessary. You're talking out of turn," retorted Peter. - Who will come to us for their money? We must do the opposite!" He ordered that anyone who came to the Kunstkammer and the library should be given a free cup of coffee or a glass of wine. The librarian was given 200 roubles for food - crazy money for those times."
What's in a library?
"So: and Peter the Great had to solve this problem - how to attract readers. He took an unorthodox solution. His conversation with the Procurator-General, recorded in documents, is well known. I will not quote exactly, but it sounded something like this. The Tsar asked the Attorney General whether he should charge money for entry. He replied that of course it was necessary. You're talking out of turn," retorted Peter. - Who will come to us for their money? We must do the opposite!" He ordered that anyone who came to the Kunstkammer and the library should be given a free cup of coffee or a glass of wine. The librarian was given 200 roubles for food - crazy money for those times."
Eh, a lost tradition ...
I think every library had open jerrycans back then - they just scooped with mugs...
Eh, a lost tradition ...
What are they called there?
and all in English, like a beck and call, but just a library as a café-summer veranda - no. Librari Lounge.