Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 31
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
Oops, mistake. The first one was a word, and the word was 2 bytes :)
If you know that there is some phenomenon (a set of facts that doesn't fit into current knowledge), it actually means that you know that something you don't know (otherwise if you don't even know that unexplained facts exist then there is nothing to worry about).
And so, if there is a set of unexplained facts, then in the beginning a hypothesis is built, the hypothesis produces a conceptual apparatus. Then on the basis of the new conceptual apparatus an assumption is made about the existence of additional facts which are not described in the sample of known facts. And then the experiments are performed (you call it research).
The experiments, respectively, either confirm or refute the hypothesis. After that the hypothesis passes into the category of theories and they try to disprove it in every possible way. If the scientific community for many years and failed to disprove the theory, it passes into the category of proven knowledge and from this point you can say: I know something.
I liked your description of the emergence of scientific theories, but your statement "an unproven theory becomes proven over time" is clearly far from the scientific approach.
Just because a theory has not been disproved does not mean that it is proven. By this logic, modern science should already be full of pseudoscientific "rubbish", much of which simply cannot be disproved.
Is it possible to disprove the theory of astral bodies? And the theory that the stars are involved in people's destinies? And the theory of the afterlife? The theory of beings living in five (though why not ten) dimensions....?
Science has never been able to disprove these theories. I haven't seen these refutations anywhere.))
I like your description of the emergence of scientific theories, but your statement "an unproven theory becomes proven over time" is clearly far from the scientific approach.
Just because a theory has not been disproved does not mean that it is proven. By this logic, modern science should already be full of pseudoscientific "rubbish", much of which simply cannot be disproved.
Is it possible to disprove the theory of astral bodies? And the theory that the stars are involved in people's destinies? And the theory of the afterlife? The theory of beings living in five (though why not ten) dimensions....?
Science has never been able to disprove these theories. I haven't seen these refutations anywhere.))
Do you have any theory? A theory proven or disproven experimentally? And so you would talk about your theory publicly.
Usually, people's gaps in science education are successfully filled by their imagination. Hence so many theories.
Everyone chooses a theory to their liking. Some theories are particularly fashionable now... Others will be fashionable in the future.
To become fashionable, theory must capture the imagination, build new worlds, open doors to other dimensions... To entertain the amateur...
Who will be interested in a theory filled with dry formulas and numbers, even if it explains the great mysteries of the universe?
A theory must be popular science, otherwise the crowd will not be interested in it.
But what does science have to do with it?
Do you have any theory? A theory proven or disproven experimentally? and so that you would talk about your theory publicly.
Yes, I have theories, but they lie in the field of psychology. In the past, I was involved in that science.
Have you stated your theories publicly?
Have you stated your theories publicly? If yes, perhaps there are references to posts on the internet, publications in magazines or forums or blogs.
No, I have not publicly stated it.
Why? Perhaps because it takes some courage to voice them? Is it not because there are always a thousand refutors for one theorist?
What does psychology say about this phenomenon?
Yes, I have theories, but they lie in the field of psychology. I used to do this science in the past. I haven't talked about them publicly, as they're under development...
On the subject of measurements, and more)
- Do you see a gopher?- No.
- Neither do I. You do.
- Got it.
Why? Perhaps because it takes some courage to voice them? Is it not because there are always a thousand refutors for one theorist?
What does psychology say about this phenomenon?
Not really. My research was for my own sake. By voicing something, arguing with someone, we waste time and energy. But do we grow from it? I think it depends on the audience we're talking to. When I was doing my research, I needed to grow, not struggle with other people's misunderstandings.
You can't fight logic. If a scientist is good at logic, he is not afraid of any refutation.