At precisely what point did it become acceptable to propose and take seriously scientific theories that are not falsifiable?
>>16541840When non-Christians became accepted into academia
>>16541840When string theorists realized their shit won’t go anywhere but the grant money must flow. Sometime between 1995 and 2015. Positive cosmological constant and no supersymmetry or large extra dimensions at the LHC breached that ship and instead of bailing, the retards call it a submarine now (a framework and not a theory).
>>16541840Around gallileos time
>>16541840The Higgs was the turning point. It was predicted mathematically long before it was shown by the LHC. They were confident they would find it and they did, but they haven't really done shit since then, and the Higgs was just the last piece of the Standard Model, which was already decades old by Higgs' own time. Now, it's just never ending gibbs for "colliders" and "strings" and "particles" and all sorts of other forms of pseudo-science.Physics is hurting badly. We can't let nerds wither on the vine, so we give them elaborate Welfare jobs in the hopes they'll eventually stumble across something interesting, rather than making interesting, testable and feasible predictions. If it can't be used by the Military, first and foremost, you won't get much funding, and AI will start doing all the Maths, so we won't really need very many "real" Physicists anymore. They need to make themselves relevant again, or they will be obsolete as a form of technology, as well.
>>16541840Darwin
>>16542131Even the higgs I wouldn't consider falsifiable.How do you falsify the existence of something?You look for it long enough and if you don't find it, you say it doesn't exist.First of all, this is not certain falsification.Secondly, if you run enough experiments looking for a particle, eventually you will inevitably get that particles signature to a statistically significant degree of certainty.I would say physics was broken long before the "discovery" of the higgs.
>>16542178Start flipping a US dime.When it turns up sides you can post again.
>>16542178>You look for it long enough and if you don't find it, you say it doesn't exist.If there's no known better way you just have to go with it. In any sort of natural science there is always some waggle room in the results due to all sorts of imperfections. There's no rigid proof, there's only reasonable proof. If you're not satisfied with your findings look 10 times longer or billion times longer to reduce the waggle window.
>>16542213I just did. Just don't ask me to repeat it>>16542217Yes, true, but if what you are looking for is only identified by probabilistic characteristics, inevitably, in the process of falsifying it this way, you will find something that looks like it.
>>16542224There's some waggle room in positive results too, not in negative only. Reproduce the experiment to be somewhat more sure then before or to disprove it.
>>16541840only midwit physicists do in reality us high IQ chads know whats rightex: mutliverse is fake and gay, there isnt a god outside of the mutliverse that designed it its an isolated systemanything else?
>>16542178You would falsify the Higgs by finding something that is NOT the Higgs that is performing the function that you expected from the Higgs.
>>16542178>Secondly, if you run enough experiments looking for a particle, eventually you will inevitably get that particles signature to a statistically significant degree of certainty. You will amplify noise by repeating experiments, eventually something will be amplified to a signal level.What you won't be able to do is predict beforehand which value will be amplified.Green jellybeans, you know.
>>16542590lmao 105 FSIQ max
>>16542178dimwit post
