If your priest begins their sermon by pissing on the altar, you suspect maybe it's not a priest. If a soldier ties down their squadmate and shits on their chest, you think maybe it's an imposter.
-
-
Show this thread
-
When a scientist fits their model to retrodiction rather than prediction, they are an abomination.
Show this thread -
You made a specific, testable prediction. The prediction failed.
Show this thread -
Failure to accept the falsification proves that the models were never intended to be predictive. They were never science. That's it. Game over. You're done.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Peasants say what they're told to say.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
fit *data* you mean? I'm not sure I've ever seen someone come up with *predictions*, and *then* try to come up with a model for that.
-
that's the clue they're not really predictions but conclusions masquerading as predictions.
-
the steps, in order 1. decide what "should" happen 2. come up with model in which what you've already decided "should" happen is exactly what is predicted 3. fit data to model by any means necessary it's the exact reverse of scientific method.
-
4. (3.1?) When actual measurements contradict the model, adjust the model with random BS until they don't, then claim the random BS is fact because the model now 'predicts' the measurements.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scientism is the biggest religion today.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't know much (no, seriously: I know very very little) but I know that fitting this large number of external parameters to an already large complex model is.... hardpic.twitter.com/6NN45YD5KR
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.