Quote:
Originally Posted by Tassel
The New York Times. Some random person's blog. The news section of a free downloads web site. You're quoting pop-science news stories written by non-scientists as evidence that science "proves" its theories. Why not show a paper published in PRL claiming to prove Einstein right?
Is it really necessary to argue facts with you? Can you just do the slightest amount of research into the scientific method and how science actually works? Maybe looking up the definition of "theory" on Wikipedia would be a good first step:
|
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Here's what Wiki says on
Physics Theory, as it applies to theory modeling:
Quote:
|
Theories are constructed in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models.
|
Isn't that what I said earlier, that theory is only modeling? So I must turn this around on you, since you are being so bold in yours above to criticize my research integrity:
"Is it really necessary to argue facts with you? Can you just do the slightest amount of research into the scientific method and how science actually works? Maybe looking up the definition of "theory" on Wikipedia would be a good first step?" Would that work for you?
