10 Comments

Solipsism is predictively rife among climate change models who undress on NYC subway cars during abnormally hot days and practice catoptromancy by taking smart phone selfies of their sweating bodies.

Expand full comment
Jun 5, 2023Liked by William M Briggs

💬 which no after-the-fact excuses allowed.

Your enemies managed to insert only the puniest of typos—likely appalled at the blinding clarity of your writing 🤭

Expand full comment
Jun 5, 2023Liked by William M Briggs

Very interesting, thank you.

Expand full comment
author

See PJ's comments below.

Then see this tweet thread. There just in LOGICAL difference between model, theory, law, hypothesis, whatever.

https://twitter.com/FamedCelebrity/status/1665825670709284864

Expand full comment

Sorry but you are completely wrong.

Science is not prediction or prophecy, Science is a "Hypothesis" which, if true, gives a result under a precise set of conditions.

Without the Hypothesis, it is voodoo.

Sometimes the physics behind the Hypothesis is (partly) understood, e.g. Boyle's law and many times it is not, e.g. Newton's gravity hypothesis.

Scientific method consists of testing the hypothesis, either by experiment or by observation of data.

The problem with science was explained by Patrick Flanagan, who observed that as the hypothesis was tested, instead of reducing the possible causes and results and eliminating various hypotheses, the normal occurrence was for the number of hypotheses to increase as additional data was added.

So he gave up science and wrote books instead.

Expand full comment
author

PJ,

Model, theory, hypothesis. It's all the same.

Expand full comment

Sorry William but my dictionary would disagree. Neither Model nor Theory will necessarily provide predictions. Only in very specific usage of the words.

Your twitter thread very clearly moves from a theory (I assume you start with 'Y was a result of X') to a hypothesis. If you state 'If X then Y' that is a hypothesis, not a model or a theory.

God created the Universe is a theory, as it cannot be tested, it is not a hypothesis.

God will create a Universe within a measurable period of time under certain conditions, is a hypothesis which time will confirm or prove an error.

The Big Bang Theory is exactly that, it is not testable, it is also not science. No more scientific than Creationism or Intelligent Design.

The hypothesis that given sufficient monkeys with sufficient typewriters and sufficient time, the complete works of William Shakespeare will be duplicated is quite different than the theory that the works were in fact created by monkeys.

Expand full comment

Isn't voodoo kinda hypothesis? 😏 Just small-h fo' sho' 😁

Expand full comment

Well if you include proving that biting the heads off chickens kills them, then yes.

But then you have to ask Are there "Zombie" chickens? (No Felicia, Politicians are zombies, they are headless and they are chickens, but it does not confirm the conjecture.)

Expand full comment

Yes, Virginia, there’re tons of bipeds with broad flat nails, not only featherless but mindless & heartless to boot. Doncha dare hide behind the demure Felicia’s behind! 😝

Expand full comment