Yea i was underwater and it was lighter than water. That is just one example. Seriously this stuff shouldn't be riddles to you guys.

I'm sure you can think of circumstances under which that doesn't occur.

I expected this response because you are too uneducated to predict that I knew you would qualify your statement and fail to interpret my purpose in saying that. Now go look up who has ever said that the process of science has proved something. If you come back with more nonsense thats the end of my attempt to help you understand science, but hopefully the seed has been planted.

And why isn't that already normally part of a science curriculum. The discrepancies and unexplained are the most interesting and important part if you want to train a new generation of scientists. Its sad that such a movement is coming from the most superstitious of society.

If you think our current theories of the origin of life are factual you are misled. How the hell should people know for sure what happened billions of years ago or even that it was billions of years ago? There are just more and less plausible theories that get selected from based on when a few compete and one turns out to be more useful than the other. The people advocating science really need to learn what it is. I don't believe in god btw (thats not to say something like that can't exist).

Lateral thinking shows that if Man is just another process of the Universe, then if you PLACE each die in the SIX position, it is the same conceptual process as rolling the die, and this being so you can place any number of dice in the SIX position.

Do the experiment. You claim you can place "any number" of dice in the six position. See how many is actually possible to maintain in the six position at once. Its also absurd to consider placing as the same thing as rolling/throwing when you encounter that these two activities are different in some way probably every day of your life... but I would encourage you to do the actual experiment of seeing how many you can place with the six facing up before something disrupts the order you have created.

You are part of the problem AK Marc. You believe that it is fact that by dropping something it always falls when this has been debunked for quite awhile now. Further, you claimed that this is evidence that science can ever prove something. This shows fundamental misunderstanding of the process of science, please stop advocating for us until you spend some time learning the philosophy behind it.

We've already disproved that one by doing it in space, etc.

It depends just how bad a model it is. I don't believe there is evidence to support it for most rodent research, but it is possible that it would be better if those researchers simply had their brainpower and funding put to use in a different field rather than trying to force the issue with mouse biomedical research.

The chosen approach appears to be just do a bunch of mouse research and see how it turns out after decades of this without verifying whether the model is useful or not to begin with. Notably, this strategy sequesters funding from researchers who could make focused attempts at verifying the model and results in people who have built careers on possibly useless research being put in charge of reviewing grants and publications that could undermine their work. So it no doubt will delay the conclusion it is a waste of time (possibly for generations) if that turns out to be true.

As I said I believe there is likely some merit to rodent research, but you have to admit the system is not set up to fail gracefully if this turns out not to be the case.

The benchmark is not "higher". It could be said to be higher if the papers needed to meet proper scientific criteria as well as being truly innovative. The benchmark is different. The perceived "innovation" aspect is used at the expense of other qualities of good scientific reports (ie using statistics properly and reporting all your methods and data).

That joke is there because the "cures" are most often based on faulty statistical inference. A closer look at much of the data will reveal the cure did not exist for mice in the first place, the results were just much more likely to occur by chance than conveyed by the literature. The issue of mice not being completely analogous to humans is an issue faced by researchers but it is being used to hide failure to correctly report and interpret the results of studies (systemic incompetence). All the evidence points towards false positive rates of 70% or higher throughout biomedical literature.

Its very hard to publish there, but the quality of publications is not that high, possibly even lower than elsewhere if you measure by false positive rate. There is a mass failure to understand the importance of the assumptions underlying statistical inference (as you mentioned), as well as the importance of completely reporting your methods and data so that it is possible for others to intelligently draw their own inferences and replicate your work. In short, those journals have a culture that encourages "sexy" and "conclusive" results at the expense of the fundamental basis for successful science that we learn in gradeschool.

Interesting stuff

I hope you aren't a scientist.

I couldn't make sense of this post...