Check into how this software works. It chooses a sparse set of data points, creates its "model", and then brings in more points to test against. I've used it (though not super seriously) and heard a talk by one of its creators. It's based upon a heuristic of finding the _most_surprising_, _worst_ matches to its guesses and then refining the model. In the sense that it is explicitly used to predict how well it fits to further actual, experimentally-obtained data points, your criterion of it being "tested against a physical environment to determine whether the predictions are correct" is exactly what it does.

... or... what was before that? I forget.
 

Ponies!!!11111!1 and hot grits.

You need to revisit KDE, if you left it when it was in the state you describe. I agree with the SQL database crap, but the stability issues have been worked out, at least for me, and I use all of the things you specifically mention.

I'm using Clementine on linux and Windows. It now has those two things (automated album art and lyrics fetching), at least on linux, and I think on Windows too.

Facetious or not, you seem to be spot-on with each of those points. That junk has given me fits each time I've installed KDE on a computer. It's not getting in my way quite as much now, but it sure isn't doing me any favors.

No.

Yes. And it's been done, repeatedly.

Right. Along with the chirping noise whenever a fingerprint/face/building flashes by on the screen. Reminds me of people who don't turn off the forward/back navigation sounds in Windows.

I've met a couple. I was particularly impressed with Steven Kotler. Of course, he was speaking to a bunch of cynical and dare-you-to-impress-me scientists at Los Alamos. But he sat down (no notes, no overheads, no fucking powerpoints or the equivalents) and just *talked*. And it was fascinating. He did a remarkable job, and utterly convinced me that there are _some_ journalists who want to get it right, who do the background research, who don't pick quotes to make people seem stupider or more hyperbolic or more breathless than they really are, and who was terribly concerned with honestly reporting just what is going on.

You may well be a Poe, because of your non-understanding of "theory". This is just sad, and you're a brilliant illustration of the problem.

*Anything* can be "analysed" by philosophy. Philosophy is, in essence, thinking about stuff. Fine. But thinking about stuff should (in my opinion) include some sort of wondering about whether it's got any connections to the real world.

Religions themselves are sometimes comforting, and they certainly seem to have some common grounds. That's interesting. Their history and the way they've influenced us and our world is interesting.

Religions also consistently fail to accord with reality. That's sad. It's also interesting. And *that's* science.

Yes, postulates have their places.

The problem, though, is that postulates live or die by the successes or failures of the hypotheses which hinge completely upon them. Thus far, all hypotheses hinging on the postulate of a creator of some sort have died. And I haven't seen any which are specific beyond some sort of vague handwaving; their goalposts are shifted all the time.

Besides which, this is exactly what Ockham's razor, Russell's Flying Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hollow be His penne) are brilliant at showing.

It certainly looks as though your postulate is completely unnecessary.

You call that "not so bleak"? When ~72% of teachers actually give sky-daddy-dunnit some credence in a science classroom? Holy shit.

Perhaps you should learn a bit about causality and entropy, before (whi you wander in and spout gobbeldygook.

So long as you put the question mark in the right spot . . ..

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=first+post!

There is no "pull", only push.