Theoretical Physics Is Pseudoscience

[Page Poet]

https://www.b.itch.ute.com/video/Y56m7B1hGfVN/

Remove the . after the letters b and h above and the link will work.

 

[PloverWing]

What's your one-paragraph summary of the video?

 

[Pommer]

https://www.b.itch.ute.com/video/Y56m7B1hGfVN/

Remove the . after the letters b and h above and the link will work.

No.

 

[Bradskii]

No thanks...

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Hope not Hate also documented videos hosted on Bit-Chute supporting or produced by terrorist groups, including ISIS and the neo-Nazi groups National Action and Atomwaffen Division.

 

[Page Poet]

Hope not Hate also documented videos hosted on Bit-Chute supporting or produced by terrorist groups, including ISIS and the neo-Nazi groups National Action and Atomwaffen Division.

View attachment 335762

Doubt there is any evidence of your claim. Nevertheless, an entire platform is not slandered for the alleged posting of a few -if we did that then no platforms anywhere would be viewable as every platform on the web has content that is objectionable to someone.

 

[Astrid]

Doubt there is any evidence of your claim. Nevertheless, an entire platform is not slandered for the alleged posting of a few -if we did that then no platforms anywhere would be viewable as every platform on the web has content that is objectionable to someone.

Let's see evidence for YOUR claims.

 

[Page Poet]

Let's see evidence for YOUR claims.

I posted a link. It is not my assertion that theoretical science is pseudoscience, it is the admission of the theoretical scientists! By the way, it is already in the name "theoretical" science is not science and admittedly does not conduct science with the scientific method.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

https://www.b.itch.ute.com/video/Y56m7B1hGfVN/

Remove the . after the letters b and h above and the link will work.

Oh, that's rich......... !!!

 

[Page Poet]

That theories are admitted to be mere ideas by the theorists is understandable; that theories are believed to be facts by the gullible is also understandable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That theories are admitted to be mere ideas by the theorists is understandable; that theories are believed to be facts by the gullible is also understandable.

You don't seem to understand what the term "theory" means in the context of Science. Also, keep in mind that even though theoretical physicists, like all scientists when doing science, may have questionable theoretical postulates, this doesn't mean they're on all the same side socially, politically, or even academically.

Not every theoretical physicist, for instance, is a String Theorist; some in fact, like Lee Smolin or Sabine Hossenfelder, may even criticize the theoretical work of other theoretical physicists.

So, don't degrade them or merely lump them altogether. They're not identical.

 

[Page Poet]

You don't seem to understand what the term "theory" means in the context of Science. Also, keep in mind that even though theoretical physicists, like all scientists when doing science, may have questionable theoretical postulates, this doesn't mean they're on all the same side socially, politically, or even academically.

Not every theoretical physicist, for instance, is a String Theorist; some in fact, like Lee Smolin or Sabine Hossenfelder, may even criticize the theoretical work of other theoretical physicists.

So, don't degrade them or merely lump them altogether. They're not identical.

Theoretical physicists is not science theory. You seem to misunderstand this. Theoretical physics is theory and no scientific method is used. It is just narrative with elaborate mathematical theory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Theoretical physicists is not science theory. You seem to misunderstand this. Theoretical physics is theory and no scientific method is used. It is just narrative with elaborate mathematical theory.

No. I've studied the N.O.S., or the Nature of Science, at the university level and I do have some minimal knowledge about "what science is." Although I'm not a working scientist myself, more of a philosopher, I do know what consitutes the Sciences and I am aware they each have their own specific hands-on method(s). The actual methods used within the various fields depend upon the field. There is no such thing as "THE" scientific method.

I think you're perhaps confusing what is strictly and specifically known as Experimental Science with the "Sciences" on a wider, more diverse level.

No, not every science is strictly "experimental," or even empirical, in nature. This can be seen in the general more recent definitions supplied by National Science Teaching Association, the Science Council, as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Q: Do Scientists Really Use the “Scientific Method?”

www.nsta.org

​

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

​

Chapter 1: The Nature of Science

It also helps if you read a bit of Philosohy of Science to see that actual theory and practice in science aren't so clear cut. But sure, if we want to go with a definition that a 1st grader can follow, sort of like the one provided in simple [concise, really] "5'6 steps" by Khan Academy, then the typical notion of the "scientific method" can serve as a generic definition. But only as a very generic definition.

​

The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

www.khanacademy.org

​

Moreover, Oppenheimer himself was a Theoretical Scientist, and no one is going to look upon the history of the Manhatten Project, which was a mix of the work of science theorists, experimentalists and technicians, and say that Oppenheimer wasn't a "real scientist" or doing "real science."

Just something to think about ... have a good day!

 

[Page Poet]

No. I've studied the N.O.S., or the Nature of Science, at the university level and I do have some minimal knowledge about "what science is." Although I'm not a working scientist myself, more of a philosopher, I do know what consitutes the Sciences and I am aware they each have their own specific hands-on method(s). The actual methods used within the various fields depend upon the field. There is no such thing as "THE" scientific method.

I think you're perhaps confusing what is strictly and specifically known as Experimental Science with the "Sciences" on a wider, more diverse level.

No, not every science is strictly "experimental," or even empirical, in nature. This can be seen in the general more recent definitions supplied by National Science Teaching Association, the Science Council, as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Q: Do Scientists Really Use the “Scientific Method?”

www.nsta.org

​

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

​

Chapter 1: The Nature of Science

It also helps if you read a bit of Philosohy of Science to see that actual theory and practice in science aren't so clear cut. But sure, if we want to go with a definition that a 1st grader can follow, sort of like the one provided in simple [concise, really] "5'6 steps" by Khan Academy, then the typical notion of the "scientific method" can serve as a generic definition. But only as a very generic definition.

​

The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

www.khanacademy.org

​

Moreover, Oppenheimer himself was a Theoretical Scientist, and no one is going to look upon the history of the Manhatten Project, which was a mix of the work of science theorists, experimentalists and technicians, and say that Oppenheimer wasn't a "real scientist" or doing "real science."

Just something to think about ... have a good day!

Yes, there is a scientific method. It has been used for hundreds of years. The scientific method is testing facts with experimentation and testing. That is science. Had you watched the video, the theoretical scientist interviewed admits with laughter that his theories are nothing more than fantasies. If I can't prove (which means test) a theory and verify that it is true than the theory is just a hypothetical fantasy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, there is a scientific method. It has been used for hundreds of years. The scientific method is testing facts with experimentation and testing. That is science. Had you watched the video, the theoretical scientist interviewed admits with laughter that his theories are nothing more than fantasies. If I can't prove (which means test) a theory and verify that it is true than the theory is just a hypothetical fantasy.

And if you had read all of which I posted... ... ... well, you wouldn't be responding as you do right now.

But, I know, I know. You'd prefer that I take a lighter to my diplomas ...

I'm not going to watch your video, but maybe you could just tell me the name of the theoretical physicist whom you're citing from the video.

 

[Page Poet]

And if you had read all of which I posted... ... ... well, you wouldn't be responding as you do right now.

But, I know, I know. You'd prefer that I take a lighter to my diplomas ...

I'm not going to watch your video, but maybe you could just tell me the name of the theoretical physicist whom you're citing from the video.

1) Authority is nothing to facts. Appeals to authority ibedem.

2) You want me to go through all that you posted but you haven't even watched the video you are arguing against.

3) One of your links, which posted a concocted defition of science, purports that collecting evidence is conducting science. Do I really need to explain that collecting is not presenting a process that is verifiable by experimentation and test? That sounds more like "woke" science -in other words pseudoscience.

By your own admission you have not viewed the video. Therefrom all of your objections are denied. Have a seat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1) Authority is nothing to facts. Appeals to authority ibedem.

2) You want me to go through all that you posted but you haven't even watched the video you are arguing against.

3) One of your links, which posted a concocted defition of science, purports that collecting evidence is conducting science. Do I really need to explain that collecting is not presenting a process that is verifiable by experimentation and test? That sounds more like "woke" science -in other words pseudoscience.

By your own admission you have not viewed the video. Therefrom all of your objections are denied. Have a seat.

Wow! This is the first time on CF that I've ever seen a person literally pull the rug out from under their own feet. You're good! Do you have any other illusions you can perform?

 

[Page Poet]

Wow! This is the first time on CF that I've ever seen a person literally pull the rug out from under their own feet. You're good! Do you have any other illusions you can perform?

Straw man clowning will not produce a superior argument or present verifiable facts. Have a seat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Straw man clowning will not produce a superior argument or present verifiable facts. Have a seat.

It's not a straw man, and you know it! An appeal to authority is valid IF the authority is an expert on the subject being discussed (hence, he/she would know the relevant facts).

As it is, you've apparently been mis-educated not only on Informal Logic but are also in need of a remedial class on research basics.

Have you ever heard of the term, "Literature Review" in relation to doing basic research for something as simple as a class paper?

 

[Page Poet]

It's not a straw man, and you know it! An appeal to authority is valid IF the authority is an expert on the subject being discussed (hence, he/she would know the relevant facts).

As it is, you've apparently been mis-educated not only on Informal Logic but are also in need of a remedial class on research basics.

Have you ever heard of the term, "Literature Review" in relation to doing basic research for something as simple as a class paper?

All straw man argument and intended to change the topic.

You admitted you have not viewed the video, you have not viewed what a very famous theorist has to say about his own work, so you have no say or comment of any worth. Two other posters above at least had the logic and right mind to admit they had not viewed the video and made no comment, but you cannot even muster that. Commenting on evidence without viewing evidence is not a very smart thing to do and gets your case dismissed in this court...

However, you may continue to sit in your seat there and sulk and sink and reply with emotion.