122
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + + + + + + + +
→This article is ironic, i hope.: new section
I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)
== This article is ironic, i hope. ==
I dont see how proof by contradiction is not as valid as the rest of mathematics. If you ask "is theorem a true?"and you mange to construct a contradiction based on theorem a, then you know it is not true.
I don't see how astronomy is not an exact science. As a matter of fact it is the first exact science on the planet and the mother of physics. No astronomer conceals that black holes are still unclear subjects and that the exact way in which the universe began is still a matter of active research.
I dont see why relativity should be excluded from physics.
I save my breath and don't talk about the rest.