15 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
ddingusSep 2024Strongly recommends
Yes! Nature is the authority. Our scientific method allows us to pose any question and it allows us to gain understanding when said questions are testable and repeatable. Notably: we never get to know anything, sadly But, we do understand monkey see, monkey do style: do A get B Observing nature is key, but not the only key. Observation coupled with mathematics allows us to process observation analytically, and all of that allows us to... Guess and test! Richard Feynman taught this at Cornell, and it remains one of the best explanations of the scientific method around because it is clear, funny and short, to the point: ▶ this video And just another thing to add here, and that is science is not a belief system, nor does it require belief due to the method requiring we question everything, including the method! Notably, Feynman talks about things being likely or unlikely as a root driver for our guesses, which again depend on observation, that stumbling into that which can enlighten, math needed to predict, and experiment to test. Theory is not proof either. It is simply the most predictive understanding we have! Old theory still works as well as it ever did, and that build down to how predictive it is. Is a theory proven right? Nope, we can only say we have yet to prove it wrong. Example: Einstein Theory of General Relativity has been very difficult to prove wrong and it has been very predictive even when we have not expected it to be! Is Einstein right? Who knows? What we can say i
in “Is accidentally stumbling across the unknown a key part of science?” · View on HN
Kim_BruningApr 2024Strongly recommends
▶ this video < have an explanation by Feynman on the scientific method. (Feynman is a great teacher!) The whole video is pretty good, and the specific point starting with "You cannot prove a vague theory wrong" is explained around 5:10.
in “I should have loved biology (2020)” · View on HN
ddingusNov 2022Strongly recommends
Science is about basic understanding. Monkey see, monkey do. Input A yields outcome B. We get that understanding this way: ▶ this video I love that whole series of lectures. They are his Cornell introduction to physics lectures and are a gold mine of basic scientific type thinking. So far, science has not increased our knowledge of truth. That's damn tough to come by. What it has done is very significantly expanded our understanding of the world. Our theories are far more predictive in far more contexts than ever! But, that is it! Monkey see, monkey do. Engineering is all about applying that understanding to solve problems in robust, efficient, safe ways.
in “In what sense is quantum computing a science?” · View on HN
quasirandomMar 2021Strongly recommends
Feynman's lectures on the character of physical law should be something everyone sees in school. In general we look for a new law by the following process: first we guess it, then we compute the consequences of the guess... and then we compare those computation results to experiment. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment its wrong, that's all there is to it. Notice however that we never prove it right... In the future there could be a wider range of experiments, or you could compute a wider range of consequences, and you may discover then that the thing is wrong. That's why laws like Newton's laws for the motions of planets last such a long time... It took several hundred years before the slight error in the motion of Mercury was developed. ▶ this video
in “Trust: The Need for Public Understanding of How Science Works” · View on HN
acscottSep 2016Strongly recommends
"Science" has now many definitions. My personal understanding of "science" is this: ▶ this video
in “Bad science persists because poor methods are rewarded” · View on HN
vixen99Mar 2021Recommends
Why not destroy such sceptics (on HN or anywhere else) regarding the rate of climate change and related topics? All you have to do is demonstrate that the data presented by them & their interpretation is garbage, nonsense or whatever else you want to call it. Must surely be easier than presenting a classic logical fallacy - argument by authority and thinking that nails it. Maybe the link is indeed total rubbish but talking about man-hours and 'trained PhD's' is irrelevant. Feynman explains nicely: ▶ this video . Science is a matter of a debate on facts versus theory not a vote-counting appeal on behalf of the supposed position of an ill-defined electorate.
in “Scientists discover fossil plants beneath mile-deep Greenland ice” · View on HN
Show 9 more comments
jshenJun 2012Recommends
" the only difference between spiritual beliefs and academic ones is the language used to express them" I'm not sure what is meant by "academic", but if it's a synonym for science then I disagree. Watch the link below (feynman on the scientific method), a little after the 5 minute mark he talks about the problems of "vague" theories. This vagueness is where spiritual beliefs usually diverge from scientific beliefs. ▶ this video
in “Why Meditation Doesn't Directly Increase Happiness” · View on HN
nyrikkiFeb 2024Cites it
"A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." — Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity You are confusing conceptual models of reality with reality itself. The Scientific Method is used to construct an accurate, reliable, self-consistent, non-arbitrary representation of the world, which are models. QED is one of the most stringently tested theories in physics. But it is a model and will never be proven as 'True', we just get more confident in he model after it passes test after test, after test, after test. But it is still just the map and not the territory itself. Feynman knew this well: ▶ this video
in “The existence of a new kind of magnet has been confirmed” · View on HN
JoshColeMar 2023Cites it
> There also isn't any free will, because there isn't actually any agent who could have it. The compilation of each possible Play in an Extensive Normal Form Game into a cellular automata can constitute a refutation by counterexample of your claim. It satisfies the agent condition through congruence with the technical language defining the concept of agent in artificial intelligence literature as it relates to agents in multi-agent multi-step decision theory problems. The condition of non-deterministic policies is found and shown to be optimal by Nash's justification for an mixed strategy equilibrium. The underlying mathematics that leads there is proven via Russel and there exists various proofs of the desiderata of probability from others which can begin atop that. Furthermore by compiling the formal system to get a physical system we create the ability for a logical analogy between the formal system and the physical system through Aristotle's analogical congruence concepts. We can count the cell configurations and we can count the transitional structure, but this is mostly a formality since we know through the definition of the compilation that they must agree. As far as I can tell at every single step in the laddering up there are proofs from the basics of logic to the mathematics to the use of probability to the justification through utility theory and even to the computational universality necessary to create the physical embedding of the agent in our reality. The prior
in “A Growing Number of Scientists Are Convinced the Future Influences the Past” · View on HN
wallace_fFeb 2017Cites it
>I'm guessing you didn't read the article or have a poor understanding of nutritional science. First of all, rebuttals disagreeing with comments by suggesting one hasn't read the article are specifically against the community guidelines here, and ad hominen attacks about a commenter's understanding of a subject are also not appreciated. Math is math. Physics is a science. Theoretical physics specifically, unfortunately, some times can not be tested as expediently as we'd like. Perhaps you'd be more willing to digest it when taken from the horses mouth: ▶ this video
in “Live slow, die old: Mounting evidence for caloric restriction in humans” · View on HN
vixen99Dec 2016Cites it
The point about a scientific theory is that you test it and if its predictions do not agree with the observed facts - it's wrong. No ifs or buts. Back to the drawing board. At least that should be the approach. ▶ this video . What do we see in climatology? "The IPCC have produced 102 climate models to predict our future climate. The world’s meteorological organizations use weather models to forecast and predict weather and have been for many years. They have proved to be very accurate over 4 days and reasonably accurate over a week. The IPCC’s climate models are notoriously inaccurate. We’ve had these models now for some 30 years and we now have 30 years of data to compare them against. They are not even close to accurate." Facts trumped by theory? Looks like it these days! [link]
in “To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)” · View on HN
vixen99Feb 2014Cites it
Wouldn't want to spoil your enjoyment but why isn't it a problem in the Antarctic? As a scientist brought up to value Karl Popper's writings on the practice of science, it's disturbing to see a hypothesis (CAGW) making a whole series of failed predictions and each time some new excuse brought out to explain that failure together (from some) with choice epithets for those who remark on that failure. Feynmann made the point here ▶ this video "If it (theory/hypothesis) disagrees with experiment - it's wrong"
in “Old Arctic Ice Is Disappearing, and Taking the Rest of the Ice With It” · View on HN
summerdown2Mar 2013Cites it
Scientists don't dislike his work because it goes against their theories. They dislike his work because there is no experimental support for it. If anyone could prove this stuff there would be nobel prizes galore for them. They can't prove it because he has the wrong type of theories and no possibility of proof. Here's a video of Richard Feynman explaining what it takes for something to be real science, and why the letters from amateurs he keeps getting are incorrect. Sheldrake is no different from the people who wrote to Feynman: ▶ this video There is also the issue of how much of their career a scientist needs to spend examining the theories of cranks. They have, after all, got their own jobs to do. Perhaps it could be a tithe, in which scientists are ordered to spend one half day a week debunking perpetual motion machines before they are allowed to practice actual science? Or perhaps the onus ought to be on Sheldrake to prove his theories rigorously first?
in “TEDx talks discredited: Sheldrake speaks, argues that speed of light is dropping” · View on HN
jshenJun 2012Cites it
Here is the definition. Many of the ideas on the parent thread fall into the "you can not prove a vague theory wrong". ▶ this video I have no idea what you mean by "an arbitrary probability of 95%+"
in “Why We Don't Believe in Science” · View on HN
rmrfstarMar 2020Joke
Half of me: Feynman! ▶ this video Other half: it's a little tiring to be hyper rational and pedantic all the time.
in “One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher” · View on HN