The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman

▶ this video That is the scientific method. And it is presented by one of our best ever thinkers. Simulation fits right up front in the, "First we guess it" part of the method. That is what happened here. Now don't get me wrong. It is a good guess, but that is all it is. Next step is to compute the consequences. Simulation applies here too. We can arrive at something we could compare to nature, the authority. That has not happened. Until it does, words like "evidence" are well out of reasonable bounds. Simulation as an input to the time tested, production proven scientific method is hardly controversial. Saying that any kind of science has happened yet is and should be controversial! No science has been done, yet we see words like "evidence" and "shows" I do not know what "scientific process" means. Feels a bit more like a P.T. Barnum style upsell for potential money getting than it does science when the sim work is framed this way. If you ask me, the people doing that are jumping the gun. The upsell is unnecessary. Simulation suggests water may seperate into two different liquids when in these conditions... The differences are small, but really important. Stuff line this tends to add right up and suddenly we will have a generation of people who are not well trained skeptics able to do solid science. Given the rapid pace of change, and how compelling this stuff can be, I feel it is important to hold the line on solid science.

in “New evidence shows water separates into two different liquids at low temperature” · View on HN

Uggggghhhh, it's all fun and games to read about these wackos until you have to experience them in real life. Until you witness the deaths their bullheaded stupidity cause first hand it's humane to be apologetic to their plight. We're all ignorant, only the stupid defend their ignorance. This is what makes them dangerous. It's hard to admit you're wrong when your entire sense of self is wrapped up in your world view. Here's a Feynman chasser/refresher on what science is. ▶ this video

in “The Grandfather of Alt-Science” · View on HN

Or his steps to do science: 1. Guess 2. Compute consequences 3. Compare with experiment - if they disagree, the guess was wrong. ▶ this video

in “G. Polya, How to Solve It” · View on HN

Feynman was a particularly interesting, intelligent, but also a very moral person. He said in an interview in his older years, while tearing up: 'I know the difference between right and wrong.' Of science, my favorite bit from him is that 'in science, it does not matter what your last name is, how brilliant you are, how beautiful your theory is, all that matters is if it experimentally agrees with nature. That's all that science is'[1] After devoting his time to science, he indulged in sex, drugs and art, and in the meantime had a great deal good to say about not just nature, but about morality as well. My type of person. 1- ▶ this video

in “Feynman Algorithm (2014)” · View on HN

For all those saying this is impossible because of X, I think the great Richard Feynman put it best: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong" ▶ this video

in “NASA presents evidence that microwave thrusters seem to work” · View on HN