In science a theory is not enforced, it’s proven. If he believes whatever his worm is thinking to be true, go to a lab and get evidences for it. It’s not the European middle age anymore.
The rest of the world will be fine like when mao had the birds shot or when USSR relied on Lysenko instead of Vavilov. The US…people are going to have to get ok with shitty living real fast. Ironically, this giant reduction in the ability to consume will likely be great for the average carbon footprint.
I’m so glad there’s an ocean between us for when the shooting starts… Not that the collapse of the US won’t have enormous geopolitical ramifications, most of them bad.
Strictly speaking while you can prove things in mathematics, in science you can only disprove things. A theory which survives for a long time after a large number of experiments is widely accepted and can be trusted, but it is not proven.
What do you mean by strictly speaking?
Germ theory was proven by Pasteur experiments in the 19th century and confirmed by countless of scientists throughout the 20th Century to this day. What more proof do you want when you can literally see bacteria expand and colonize a medium?
Proof has a different meaning in science, compared to layman usage. In science it means absolute proof, and so generally only applies to mathematics.
A good counter example is Newtonian physics. It has/had a massive amount of experimental evidence behind it. It was basically proven. Then a few slight mismatches were found. Those led to both quantum mechanics and relativity. Both disproved Newtonian physics.
As for germ theory. It’s technically been disproven by the existence of viruses, and prions. Both cause infections without germs being involved.
None of that makes germ theory much less useful, just not “proven” in scientific terms.
Viruses and prions fall under the umbrella of germs/pathogens. They did not disprove germ theory. They still align with the idea that pathogens cause diseases. That’s still true.
And what if there is a discovery tomorrow that undos all that knowledge even though we have hundreds of years saying it’s true, OK so now you get it or do I have to explain further?
Please explain further.
As of today when someone has a bacterial infection you have a direct evidence of it, you use an antibiotic, you kill the bacteria, you cure the illness. No miasmia, humors or worms involved.
It’s like you are saying we have a space photo for a round earth but what if a discovery undo it tomorrow.
The idea is that theories have considerable evidence and are consistent with all testing done up to that point. (Warning: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL ONLY) But what if we found out tomorrow that if you put bacteria in an environment with a specific magnetic field, they no longer caused disease and they end up finding out that bacteria poop has magnetize structures of the cell and cause diseases. That antibiotics have the magnetized structures with the opposite polarity that counteract the bacteria poop. Or some shit like that. This would contradict our current understanding of germ theory and it would be proven to be wrong or at least incomplete.
That is why theories are not “proven” because they are ALWAYS open to better explanation if one can be provided. That being said, it is highly unlikely that any well established, defined and tested theory will ever be “disproven” wholecloth, becuase it has always been consistent with observations. Germs are real, disease is clearly related to them in some way, specific germs cause specific reactions in our bodies, etc. But we could always be partially wrong about something, or have an incomplete explanation.
EDIT: for you people down voting, you know you are defending the conclusions of science while misunderstanding the very nature of the scientific method. Science is not dogma. It is a method of continuous improvement. If evidence contradicts current understanding, science learns from it and adapts accordingly. That is what makes Science trustworthy, it does not put conclusion before the evidence. Don’t make that same mistake.
In science a theory is not enforced, it’s proven. If he believes whatever his worm is thinking to be true, go to a lab and get evidences for it. It’s not the European middle age anymore.
Not yet…
The rest of the world will be fine like when mao had the birds shot or when USSR relied on Lysenko instead of Vavilov. The US…people are going to have to get ok with shitty living real fast. Ironically, this giant reduction in the ability to consume will likely be great for the average carbon footprint.
I’m so glad there’s an ocean between us for when the shooting starts… Not that the collapse of the US won’t have enormous geopolitical ramifications, most of them bad.
inb4 American refugees on mobility scooters are roaming our European streets and complaining about the lack of parking spots
They’re here to dismantle our society, they don’t care.
Strictly speaking while you can prove things in mathematics, in science you can only disprove things. A theory which survives for a long time after a large number of experiments is widely accepted and can be trusted, but it is not proven.
What do you mean by strictly speaking? Germ theory was proven by Pasteur experiments in the 19th century and confirmed by countless of scientists throughout the 20th Century to this day. What more proof do you want when you can literally see bacteria expand and colonize a medium?
Proof has a different meaning in science, compared to layman usage. In science it means absolute proof, and so generally only applies to mathematics.
A good counter example is Newtonian physics. It has/had a massive amount of experimental evidence behind it. It was basically proven. Then a few slight mismatches were found. Those led to both quantum mechanics and relativity. Both disproved Newtonian physics.
As for germ theory. It’s technically been disproven by the existence of viruses, and prions. Both cause infections without germs being involved.
None of that makes germ theory much less useful, just not “proven” in scientific terms.
Viruses and prions fall under the umbrella of germs/pathogens. They did not disprove germ theory. They still align with the idea that pathogens cause diseases. That’s still true.
Huh viruses are germs. Germ is a broad term including bacteria viruses and fungi.
And what if there is a discovery tomorrow that undos all that knowledge even though we have hundreds of years saying it’s true, OK so now you get it or do I have to explain further?
Please explain further. As of today when someone has a bacterial infection you have a direct evidence of it, you use an antibiotic, you kill the bacteria, you cure the illness. No miasmia, humors or worms involved. It’s like you are saying we have a space photo for a round earth but what if a discovery undo it tomorrow.
The idea is that theories have considerable evidence and are consistent with all testing done up to that point. (Warning: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL ONLY) But what if we found out tomorrow that if you put bacteria in an environment with a specific magnetic field, they no longer caused disease and they end up finding out that bacteria poop has magnetize structures of the cell and cause diseases. That antibiotics have the magnetized structures with the opposite polarity that counteract the bacteria poop. Or some shit like that. This would contradict our current understanding of germ theory and it would be proven to be wrong or at least incomplete.
That is why theories are not “proven” because they are ALWAYS open to better explanation if one can be provided. That being said, it is highly unlikely that any well established, defined and tested theory will ever be “disproven” wholecloth, becuase it has always been consistent with observations. Germs are real, disease is clearly related to them in some way, specific germs cause specific reactions in our bodies, etc. But we could always be partially wrong about something, or have an incomplete explanation.
EDIT: for you people down voting, you know you are defending the conclusions of science while misunderstanding the very nature of the scientific method. Science is not dogma. It is a method of continuous improvement. If evidence contradicts current understanding, science learns from it and adapts accordingly. That is what makes Science trustworthy, it does not put conclusion before the evidence. Don’t make that same mistake.
The fact that you have to explain the scientific method is telling.
I responded to the wrong person. I meant to respond to the person above you.
I love reading this pedantic bullshit while my nation and modern civilization is being rolled back to the dark ages.