Scientific Theory Puns

I’ll start: I thought dinosaurs didn’t exist.

Hello there, super long time lurker here and this is the first time I'm trying reaching out like this but I wanted to break my lurker streak because I am looking for people to talk to about an idea that I have been mulling over for a short while. The idea is exactly what the title says, I am working on building out an analysis of the scientific method as a concept through a critical theory lens. Specifically I want to work on examining the idea that the scientific method as a concept has a weird history that indicates that its adoption was based more around money, status, and politics in general than it was about how good a method it is. In fact one can see this just by looking at the term itself, scientific method, it implies that this is the method of science, yet this is wrong. Now I wont' t go into the discussion about whether or not the scientific method exists because I am working from a presupposition that it doesn't which is a view shared by philosophers of science like Hillary Putnam, Paul Feyerabend, and Thomas Kuhn as well as scientists like Einstein. What interests me more is why this method was adopted and I think this will be clear once you examine the attached picture.

The picture is a Google Ngram search, which looks for instances of a certain phrase, in this instance scientific method, and then searches books for its usage. What is interesting about this graph is that the usage of the term goes up in usage from the middle of the 1800's to around 1950 before it starts to decline. This is easy to understand because before 1950 talk about the idea of a unified method was growing but then in the 1950's and 60's scientists and philosophers of science started coming out against the method. But then in the 1980's it changes and it starts going back into usage again. Yet when one looks for some key piece of literature during this time that definitively proved the naysayers of the scientific method wrong you come up short. Now this is about as far as I have gotten on my own, though I have just recently started working on this idea.

Now while I could leave it there, I did want to offer a bit of conjecture, though the fallowing ideas are less researched and thus I am less sure on, but I think that this community might be more open to exploring the idea. If you look at the graph again we see that during the 80's the usage of the scientific method as a phrase bottoms out and then goes back up in usage. Now I don't think it would be hard for anyo

I had a discussion with someone yesterday, trying to explain how I went from being an atheist to becoming spiritual. He was having difficulty understanding that there aren't only two options; religion and atheism/science approach and I was trying to explain that it isn't possible for our little human brains to understand everything but that based on my own research in quantum physics/mechanics meta physics etc I realized that the truth lies somewhere in between, that science is spirituality. Spirituality is the understanding that there is more to reality that we don't see and is based on the science that everything is made of energy etc.

Humans have a tendency to only believe what they can see-touch-feel-hear-smell but I find it interesting to open my mind to the possibilities of what's out there that my human self is too limited in it's body to experience. I've had my own experiences with astral projection/communicating with beings in other dimensions which has proven to me that there is so much we don't 'know', but I can't use those experiences to open the minds of others since they disregard it as 'coincidence' or 'dreaming' etc.

Science has been explaining aspects of religious/spiritual beliefs, and I'm looking to learn more about scientific theories/experiments that are demonstrating this.

I have been reflecting on this question for some time and I want to pose it to the community to see what they think about the things that this theory would need to cover in order for it to be something universal

Last two days i debated with a knowledgable muslim guy regarding the scientific errors in the quran. He said that science is always changing and a scientific theory is not a fact.

People who act out is bc of the abuse they expereinced so the only way to make the world a better place is to provide social program where parents are given financial aid only if they participate in weekly child visit therapy where kid gets to express emotion to therapist alone and mother gets to learn how to properly handle the child acting some certain ways.

Do you think ARV can be used to answer whether certain scientific theories are correct?

Assuming everything is worded properly, would this work? Or could there be interference or universal forces out there that would prevent certain questions, questions with a YES/NO format, from being accurately answered?

I understand Hypergamy is one of the foundational concepts of the Red Pill. Is there any scientific or evidence-based proof for the theory? What data led to the theory in the first place?

Thanks for your time.

I know that "science" is a more modern concept/process and that many theories of the type I'm looking for predate it. But I'm speaking of ideas that were not just blindly believed, but were backed up by evidence and supported by authorities.

I'm especially interested to learn about theories from non-Western cultures, as I'm really only familiar with Western ones, like the ones above.

Any students of the history of science out there?

I'm sure most of us have encountered the inane argument from the anti-science crowd, “that's just a theory!” What largely originated with young earth creationists dismissing evolution as “just a theory” has become a staple of the science denial crowd in general — from germ theory denial, to those who deny quantum mechanics and general relativity. It's a frustrating argument, because the scientific term “theory” doesn't match up well with the vernacular sense of the word — this makes it easy for the average joe to get confused about the term, and an uphill battle for those of us with a better understanding of science to explain it to them.

And look, I get it — people in specialized fields of study or inquiry often need their own technical jargon with specialized meaning in order to efficiently and effectively communicate among themselves about their field. This is understandable — common language is generated in an intersubjective and haphazard way that often makes it unfit for technical use. So why should established science terminology bend to the common vernacular?

Because science is supposed to be for the public good, not merely the gratification of experts and academics. And if it is to be for the public good, then it is vital that the public be as educated in science as they can be. And if the public is to be educated in science, then we should remove barriers to that education where we can. The whole purpose of language, including specialized terminology, is to clearly pass thoughts and ideas from one person to another — so if language is not adequately serving that purpose, if it inhibits the transmission of ideas more than it facilitates it, then it should be clear that we need to change the language.

I see this confusion happen in more than just the science deniers — even among people who are more science inclined, I have seen confusion about the term. Hell, I've been confused about the term in the past — it is shamefully recent that I really acquired a solid understanding of the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, beyond just the general idea that a hypothesis is what you have before experimentation and a theory is what you have afterward, which is not at all an accurate way to define a theory. And yet, this was about the best my science teachers in school could come up with.

So what is the essence of a theory, in scientific terms? It's a useful model of how something works from which you can make predictions. That's it. So why no

Hi!

I'm looking for a book that explains the Big Bang theory that is easy enough to follow for someone who doesn't have a background in this topic. Any help?

I THINK ITS BECAUSE IT THRIVES ON FAT?? so since it increases fat in our blood it reduces water right? and makes us all thirsty and dry? and since our muscles need water that's why for some of us it causes us to be sore and tired? less water more fat?

and what's happening to me is, there's only so much water my stomach can hold, and it tends to be less than what I need to counteract the effect of tiredness. it does help to just not think about it too much but DAMN I might need some electrolyte solution I guess?

So many of you guys have seen the landmark study that showed that PMO raises dopamine, and then after ejaculation, prolactin spikes and downregulates the dopamine surge, along with oxytocin, vasopressin, and several other hormones.

I was curious if, for those who are aware of how detrimental prolactin is to hair, have noticed hair loss, particularly temple regression as a result of their PMO habit. Also, on the flip side, after retaining, have you all noticed recovery (specifically in recovering temple recession) from abstaining?

I was unfortunately severely addicted to PMO during my college years (between 2019-2021, I basically fapped every week, multiple times, despite KNOWING about semen retention, because my depression and addiction kept me in a cycle) and lost not only my academic standing, but also saw a HUGE deterioration in my hair health (and fitness, as PMO drained my energy), and my temples receded pretty distinctly. I really just want to know if there is any hope to get my hair back. I understand this is a materialistic thing to hope for but I just hate seeing myself like this, as it reminds me of my mistakes and that I have to show it off to the world like a scarlet letter.

I was banned for posting a comment pointing out that the concept of "climate change" is only a theory.

Is r/architecture a sub that promotes evidence-based design solutions that engage in the reality of the real world or halcyon daydreams that minimizes the human cost/benefit analysis?

Here's the link to that thread that got me banned:

>Climate Change is only a theory and it is a theory not supported by robust evidence.

>The only attraction people have to this topic is an emotional appeal, like what-ifs, and could happen. Eighty years of fear-mongering with none of them coming true. The ONLY chart supporting this "fear" is the 'hockey (hoaky) stick one that Al Gore provided in his debunked "mockumentary" An Inconvenient Truth.

>Scientific evidence that CO2 at 415 PPM is a threat to our planet is demonstrably false considering the average CO2 during the Jurassic Period - a time frame teeming with mass biodiversity and certainly not "dangerous" (unless you're afraid of dinosaurs) was when CO2 was averaging well over 1,000 PPM. Where was the tipping point when CO2 hit over 7,000 PPM during the Ordovician Ice Age?

I didn't know until adulthood that in some regions of the US, public schools didn't teach evolution as the basis of elementary science curriculum.

I'm open to a wide range of topics. Anything well researched, that presents evidence contrary to long held paradigms in a branch of science. The only caveat I have is that I don't want to get too deep into the weeds, past the point of pseudoscience.

To my knowledge, this is the standard presentation of the scientific method (e.g. in schools). However I've frequently heard claims to the effect that the philosophy of science tells us "there is no scientific method" and that this picture is simplistic. How much merit is there to this claim?

The emphasis on increasing productivity from individual worker impels the emergence of F. W. Taylor’s scientific management at the beginning of 20th century. His philosophy of rationalizing work.