Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And you misunderstood my point. The fact that astronomers stray from the path doesn't mean it is true of all scientists.
If you're saying that having 'empirical value' means predicting 'something useful', what do you mean by 'something useful' in this context?.. In the case of SUSY theory... their predictions had no empirical value in terms of predicting anything useful at LHC.
If you're saying that having 'empirical value' means predicting 'something useful', what do you mean by 'something useful' in this context?
OK, now you've explained what 'useful' means, we can substitute it into what you previously said:The ability to correctly predict the outcome of controlled experiments.
Yay! Well, yes and no - SUSY models predict heavy particles which have yet to be found at LHC. The lack of detection at the energy regimes explored so far, "significantly constrains a large class of SUSY models." So it's too early to call time on SUSY at the LHC
I realize that my statement was slightly ambiguous, and can be (was) misinterpreted, but I wasn't trying to imply that *all* scientists stray from the empirical path, just that scientists in general do so on a regular basis.
Then you should have no trouble of giving an example of biologists doing it.
I'm sure I've mentioned this previously, but if you read Bandyopadhyay's paper (supposedly behind this 'update'), you'll find it doesn't support the claims made. This publicity seeking press release puff is an example of Hameroff & Penrose's move deeper into the 'dark side' of Chopra-esque pseudoscience and quantum woo (yes, they really are allied with the commercial exploits of Chopra and his ilk).
You still don't seem to grasp how empirical science works - although it may be selective blindness.So it's become a SUSY theory of the gaps eh?
You'll have to explain further, that paper looks like evidence for a hypothesis has been found and published in a peer reviewed journal. I see no evidence of anything unfalsifiable, or anyone straying from the empirical path.
I'm sure I've mentioned this previously, but if you read Bandyopadhyay's paper (supposedly behind this 'update'), you'll find it doesn't support the claims made. This publicity seeking press release puff is an example of Hameroff & Penrose's move deeper into the 'dark side' of Chopra-esque pseudoscience and quantum woo (yes, they really are allied with the commercial exploits of Chopra and his ilk).
That's just my opinion, based on a good deal of reading. DYOR.
There are always people who will misguidedly or fraudulently try to give their ideas a veneer of science. All that says is that they want those ideas to look respectable and/or credible.I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, I was simply citing ORCH_OR as an example of where biology might occasionally dabble in the metaphysical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?