Eodnhoj7 wrote:
How can I if the western world is only running computer sims...like the majority of current "studies" in physics.
If they are, which I doubt, it'll be because their sims are based upon actual constants that have already been empirically tested.
What a knob you are!
All those links show are that the funding for scientific research in universities has been seriously skewed by the profit motive of the administration and pure research has gone out the window, that the scientific research journal system has been seriously skewed by the publishers and their profit motive and that both need to be addressed. But nowhere do they show that the standard tools for testing a scientific claim, i.e. double-blind testing, repeatable experiments, etc, are a failed model in any way.
What those links also missed is things like the big pharma companies excluding negative results and failing to produce all the data set in their experiments and again it's all down to the profit motive skewing scientific research.
The only "framework" is observing the studies for what they are. They exist as is. ...
And what that 'is' is the ramblings of cranks.
There is no ethical standard for determining truth in the scientific community.
Wtf has ethics got to do with it? But you are right as science does not determine truth but falsity and as such the standards of double-blind testing, consistent repeatable experimental results, providing full data sets, etc are still the main tools of any scientific endeavour which is why such as you won't do them as it'd get in the way of your metaphysic. Standards for determining 'truth' are for the crank metaphysicians like you.
It was a hypothesis...how it could have been achieved. What we know is larger underground reservoirs of water appearred to exist at one point in the construction of the pyramids.
We 'know' nothing of the sort, this was the hypothesis.
Those computer model's are the majority of interpretting phenomenon in physics. What do you think hawking's works have been proven without computer model's either in analysis or the instruments used to measure and interpret the phenomenon?
No idea which of Hawking's models you are talking about but none of them will have been 'proved' in any way by a computer model. If you could prove things with just a computer model then you don't need them as the theoretical physicists could have just done it with their mathematical models and done away with experimental physics.
The framework you present is false, as observed above, as the actual double-blind studies published are probablistic in themselves; ie the actual studies, due to corruption in the scientific community, may be true or not. ...
It's got fuck all to do with the 'scientific community' and everything to do with your pyramid cranks not doing any experiments involving the standard methods to prove or disprove falsity with respect to their claims.
Face it, you are demanding a standard from a corrupt system which has no ethics. We cannot even trust what they provide. You r argument is a fallacy of authority.
Oh! Ok, I get your point, the solution is to stop funding the research universities on the ridiculous metric of 'impact' based upon journal hits. It's time to tell the publishers of the journals to start spending a chunk of their massive profits on hiring scientists to vet their papers. It could be time, at least over here, to set up a central body to deal with peer-review of scientific papers. It's time to stop the pharma companies getting away not publishing all their results, etc, etc. This guy has been campaigning on such stuff for ages.
https://www.badscience.net/
I explained the framework, while observing it needs to be expanded in interpretation. There is no deception or absence of reason in it.
If you mean your dowsing/pyramid stuff then you should start with testing your measuring tools first and applying the standard tools of falsification to them and the results of your 'experiments', if you want to be scientific that is. Otherwise you are just a living example of why metaphysicians died out and the natural philosophers took over.
