Talk:397: Unscientific - Revision history

2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:990F:F84A:C9D2:31C4 at 17:55, 12 December 2025

2025-12-12T17:55:40Z

2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370 at 19:13, 10 December 2025

2025-12-10T19:13:14Z

2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370: bulk

2025-12-10T19:11:15Z

bulk

CalibansCreations at 09:37, 13 January 2025

2025-01-13T09:37:54Z

162.158.187.226 at 19:36, 10 February 2021

2021-02-10T19:36:49Z

Kazvorpal at 01:37, 30 November 2019

2019-11-30T01:37:08Z

Kazvorpal at 01:24, 30 November 2019

2019-11-30T01:24:59Z

Kazvorpal at 01:24, 30 November 2019

2019-11-30T01:24:05Z

Kazvorpal at 01:23, 30 November 2019

2019-11-30T01:23:35Z

Kazvorpal at 01:21, 30 November 2019

2019-11-30T01:21:07Z

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation).  Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54|173.245.54.54]]
+:Also, string theorists are not solely brains (only 2–&pi;% by mass). [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:990F:F84A:C9D2:31C4|2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:990F:F84A:C9D2:31C4]] 17:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
 Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the instrumentalists who use observation combined with experiments to make unscientific claims. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. See string theory. And that is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 10 December 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.187.226\|19:36, 10 February 2021‎}}		Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.187.226\|19:36, 10 February 2021‎}}

−	"Then try a bulk." is what I would say. Bulks' subspaces are branes. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370\|2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370]] 19:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)	+	"Then try a bulk as defined by M-theory, or if you find none, try an abandoned biology lab." is what I would say. Bulks' subspaces are branes. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370\|2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370]] 19:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 10 December 2025
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.187.226\|19:36, 10 February 2021‎}}		Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.187.226\|19:36, 10 February 2021‎}}
		+
		+	"Then try a bulk." is what I would say. Bulks' subspaces are branes. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370\|2001:4C4E:1C0C:F200:D9F1:87BB:97CA:1370]] 19:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 As a slight inner joke, I just noticed that it seems quite natural that a zombie Feymann worries about a lack of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis rigor]  less than when he was alive... --[[Special:Contributions/146.48.82.79|146.48.82.79]] 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-Should it perhaps be noted that Feynman was a known philanderer, and would therefore be interested in Megan's other body parts as well, not just her brains? {{unsigned ip|81.17.27.234}}
+Should it perhaps be noted that Feynman was a known philanderer, and would therefore be interested in Megan's other body parts as well, not just her brains? {{unsigned ip|81.17.27.234|19:41, 25 October 2013}}
 Unmentioned, branes are generalized to a number of dimmensions P, and known as P-Branes... pun on pea-brains [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.97|108.162.216.97]] 20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the instrumentalists who use observation combined with experiments to make unscientific claims. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. See string theory. And that is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
-Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science.
+Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science. {{unsigned ip|162.158.187.226|19:36, 10 February 2021‎}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 10 February 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the instrumentalists who use observation combined with experiments to make unscientific claims. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. See string theory. And that is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)		Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the instrumentalists who use observation combined with experiments to make unscientific claims. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. See string theory. And that is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Zombie Feynman is the Hillel of science.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 30 November 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]		I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]

−	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the unscientific ~~instrumentalists~~. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. And ~~this~~ is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)	+	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the instrumentalists who use observation combined with experiments to make unscientific claims. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. See string theory. And that is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:24, 30 November 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]		I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]

−	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. And this is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)	+	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? I don't remember it, and he'd be wrong if he did. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments, even aside from the unscientific instrumentalists. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. And this is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:23, 30 November 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]		I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]

−	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? It's not. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)	+	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? It's not. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. And this is one reason that people who point out the grossly unscientific nature of Mythbusters are very, very correct. The show was wonderful entertainment, and occasionally actually did bust myths. But it also "busted" falsely, like the quicksand slurry experiment. And it has definitely contributed (along with bad public educators) to myths about what science is, and a lot of unscientific attitudes, overall. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 30 November 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]		I thought Zombie Feynman's quip was less about string theorists being insufficiently intelligent but more about the [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/ lack] of empirical evidence for string theory (i.e. ideas not being tested by experimentation). Randall has made similar remarks about the untestable nature of string theory in [https://xkcd.com/171/ 171].[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54\|173.245.54.54]]

−	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? It's not. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based positivist predictions "verified" by experiments. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)	+	Did Feynman actually make that bogus claim about experimentation being the core of science? It's not. Experimentation is just one tool in the philosophy of science. But junk scientists routinely make false claims based on positivist predictions "verified" by experiments. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it's not a theory and experiments "proving" it are not scientific. —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)