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.
First, a bit of housekeeping: I did not say best ever thinker.
I did say one of our best ever thinkers.
The difference is significant!
Now, back to our discussion:
He [Feynman] would say the same!
My logic speaks to the value and importance of the scientific method. My take on that is influenced by Feynman, who is careful to make the difference between theory and the scientific method clear.
Here the method is very well presented by Feynman. His thoughts on the matter are clear and align well with this discussion.
In this case, the method has not yet been applied. Until it is, we really do not have a basis for "evidence" and "shows" being used as they are here.
That is my objection.
"Scientific process" needs some context to be useful.
Also as written, it resembles "cheese food" rather than "cheeze." And yes, I mean "scientific process" rather than "science." The cheese food people really want others to think it is cheese, but it just isn't. The scientific process people seem to really want others to think science, or "scientific method" but it just isn't.
Do you have some context to share, perhaps clarify where I have it wrong?
I will say the same thing here, "this is the don't get me wrong" part of my comment above.
The simulation results are intriguing and warrant the application of the scientific method. Let us query the authority properly and arrive at some understanding!
Once we have that, we may well be able to move the simulation from suggestive to predictive!
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.