85
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 53:
Line 53: + + + + + +
User talk:KSorenson (view source)
Revision as of 02:43, November 13, 2009
, 02:43, November 13, 2009no edit summary
::KSorenson, I don't think you understand the concept of [[falsifiability]]. That wouldn't be surprising, because it is not part of the physics curriculum, and most physics majors and grad students are clueless about it. No big deal ... if you're willing to learn it with an open mind now. If not, then you're wasting our time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:10, 12 November 2009 (EST)
::KSorenson, I don't think you understand the concept of [[falsifiability]]. That wouldn't be surprising, because it is not part of the physics curriculum, and most physics majors and grad students are clueless about it. No big deal ... if you're willing to learn it with an open mind now. If not, then you're wasting our time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:10, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:::Okay, this has to stop now. You're just making things up. "It's not part of the physics curriculum?" When I was an undergraduate, two semesters of in-depth HPST — that's History and Philosophy of Science and Technology — were a requirement for ''all'' students majoring in any of the sciences or engineering disciplines. Where I teach now, we require ''three,'' including a DIS — that's Directed Independent Study — with a thesis requirement. And that's just for the undergrads; you don't want to hear about how many seminars and lectures on philosophy and ethics physics graduate students have to attend. Students graduating with degrees in the sciences or in engineering most certainly know about Duhem and Quine, Hempel and Oppenheim, Kuhn and yes, your precious Popper, who did not say what you seem to think he said.
:::I simply don't know what to say to you any more, Aschlafly. To borrow a particularly on-the-nose expression I heard from one of my professors years ago, not only are you not right, you're not even wrong.
:::I see that someone else has already submitted a revision to the [[black hole]] article. It's an excellent change, both clear and accurate. Once the utterly false sentence "As with the related theoretical concept of a 'wormhole', it is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science" is removed, that article will be in good shape. Assuming you're honest enough to let it stand, that is.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)