RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
May 5, 2017 at 4:34 pm
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2017 at 4:43 pm by GrandizerII.)
(May 5, 2017 at 1:48 pm)alpha male Wrote: List some of them. They probably won't be testable and/or risky.
You've already made up your mind, so why bother? Any prediction I list you will say it's not risky.
Quote:I don't see a difference there. Depends on what you mean by "true experiments."
It's not my personal definition. From what I remember back when I was studying psychology, true experiments are typically those types of studies that ensure that the groups being studied are as identical as possible to each other, except with respect to the independent variable(s), best achieved via random group assignments. Then statistical analyses are applied to the groups to determine any statistically significant relationships between the variables of concern. It's just one type of scientific study, and is not the only type that involves hypothesis testing and such.
(May 5, 2017 at 3:46 pm)alpha male Wrote:(May 5, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Tiktaalik prediction falsified, yes or no? OF COURSE if it's falsified it's for reasons, no matter what is falsified in any field whatsoever.
Falsified, yes. Risky, no - they had outs.
That's not an out. The falsification, from what I read, is acknowledged. It's just not the theory of evolution (which is really what you're on about) that was falsified.
