frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,484
- 10,519
- 2,030
What's the point in making a hypothesis?
If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.
We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.
Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.
Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.
You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.
Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.
From Wikipedia
Falsifiability
A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]
For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]
The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
Ah yes, come out with the attacks.
Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.
Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.
Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.
"Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence."
I gave you a good description of what Falsification is, you ignore it with a bogus complaint about an unspecified attack.
Being called clueless and you whine about it, while ignoring the sources rebuttal is hilarious.
You are apparently clueless
And you didn't write this, huh? I just made it up?
Think about it, if you were in a discussion with someone face to face, would you start with such attacks? I don't like this sort of thing, so I don't discuss with people who do this sort of thing.
I'm not on here to get into personal fights, I don't want to have to retaliate back, so I don't reply to people who do such things.
It's not hard to understand, is it?