Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Theory or hypothesis? (Score 1) 244

I would like to expand on your point; it's not wrong, it's as Science Wonks like to say, incomplete:

""Theory" is simply the name given to the second step of the Scientific Method. That's it."

So: Theory, Hypothesis, Research, Experiment, Conclusion

Not to nitpick, but ... "Theory" is the second step. The first step is "Observation".

Also, what happened to "Prediction"? A theory is worthless unless it makes predictions about the outcomes of future experiments.

Comment Re:I call BS (Score 2) 559

My only point was that anecdotal evidence is completely worthless.

Weed is bad, weed kills, it's just a question of percentages.

Some people are OK on weed, some turn into worthless stoners with mental health problems. I don't know the relative proportions but saying weed is 100% harmless is dumb as fuck.

nb. I personally think it's less harmful than alcohol, most other people probably agree. I'll vote for total legalization of weed just as soon as a good roadside weed-detection kit has been widely deployed to the police.

Comment Re:I call BS (Score 2) 559

I know lots of people who drink and this doesn't seem right. Sure, they can be a little goofy at the time of use, but other than that they are completely functional. They're productive, have high paying challenging jobs, one is a biochemist, and their recreational use of drink doesn't seem to make life difficult for them. If the study is looking at impairment at the time of use, how do they equate this to, say marijuana. If someone is really high, I doubt there brain is fully functional at the time either. I don't think drinking is detrimental in any way.

My mother and sister _both_ died from drink. Is that enough anecdotal evidence for you?

Comment Re:Theory or hypothesis? (Score 1) 244

Christians often get criticized for saying evolution is only a theory.
When a theory is really very well supported by evidence, as evolution is.
But can we really complain when something like this, which is clearly an hypothesis, is called a theory.
"String theory" seems the biggest offender to me.
No wonder people tend to describe any idea they have as a theory.

Huh?

"Theory" is simply the name given to the second step of the Scientific Method. That's it.

Christians are criticized because they don't understand that the method doesn't stop there, that there's still a couple of steps to go ("prediction" and "experiment"). It's these other two steps that make the difference between proper science and woo-woo.

Comment Re:Amazing... but how much energy will it gain tot (Score 1) 176

With the fact that solar panels require more energy to make frames, fab the PV junctions, and make the inverters, then move to a site and install, than they ever will gain back in their usable (20 year) lifespan, how is this a net gain?

Maybe they'll build a solar panel factory right next to it. 648MW ought to be good for a few solar panels per day.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...