mason, i disagree

@Abe Lover I had my year wrong so no I was going to talk about ww2 but the radio broadcast was a year before that war even started

perhaps it could be said that it was different

prove in the sense of philosophy and mathematics has far more rigourous requirements than in any other subject

It is logically required if it is proven in math or philosophy

No other discipline does this

dude u said science doesnt prove math and philosophy proves lol we are done ur too far gone

@Silly Rabbit, Trix Are For Kids and it was different there is a great different between the internet and the radio

u told me u dont need an independent variable in a science experiemtn

that's like the comon consensus of most philosophers of science

mason i agree

Hold on I need to be right back

u also told me that because speed makes clocks tell time different it proves gravity i mean i cant take much more without getting triggered lol

I never told you that

<:bahahaha:485147430740951041>

flarf did

I don't think science tries to prove claims

@Fran i agree

In the rigorous sense of the term

science proves or disproves ur hypothesis

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.

amazing glboers been calling flat earther science deniers now we are asking for the science they say science doesnt prove anything lol wtf

No it doesn't it increases or decreases Bayesian confidence in a hpyothesis

Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it.

give me a time that happened

when they used real science not pseudo science

that rarely happens

smoking is good for you. overturned later and shown to cause health problems

might have happened a few times

Smoking good

their was real sceince or pseudosceince behind smoking is good for u ?

condemnation without investigation jeremy

=)

real science or pseudoscience behind the phrase smoking is good for u

science has had tons of theories that were thought to be true, and later found to not be true

for example, there have been multiple theories of evolution

give me one time they used real sceince not pseudoscience and it was overturned

evolution is pseudoscience

of course they are gonna say pseudoscience cant prove anything or it changes or gets overturned lol

sorry macro or micro evolution ?

wait, is Human Sheeple gone?