swansont

Referred to where? Context is important.

I think it's almost a tautology. You can probably draw a circle around a geographic representation of people's social network, with some people having their network predominantly inside and others not. The premise would be trivially true. I just think the question itself in incredibly vague, and I'd guess the answer is "probably" The real issue is the extent. If you have friends from diverse geographic areas it could depend on many factors that have nothing to do extraversion and openness. (Does your family move very often? Does your school have some sort of exchange program? Which are you in: an urban, residential or rural setting?)

Fair enough; my concern was that it could be interpreted that way by people less familiar. Yes. I think physics comes up because there are more physics-aware people involved, and also because of the "physics should incorporate more philosophy" conversation. Eise points out that there are areas in physics where you can argue they are doing philosophy, so if that's where the demarcation is fuzziest, that's where the conversation of what distinguishes the two is going to occur. If other disciplines have a similar dialogue, or similar fuzzy demarcation, by all means, bring it in to the discussion. But if it's e.g. biology, I'm not likely the one who's going to be familiar with it.

It's not a fact. You've previously been told that it's wrong

The IPCC does not recommend policy the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. https://www.ipcc.ch

I have two fundamental charges a micron apart. Please solve for the force between them using only length, mass and time.

This suggests physics as a monolithic effort, and it's not. Physics has its individual disciplines, some with no overlap, and there is the divide between theory and experiment. Some work is basic research, other work is applied research. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a significant chunk of physicists that don't speak at all on the matter, because their attitude is "meh" "So much resources" sort on string theory? What level is that, and what fraction of the budget for all physics does it represent? From what I can tell, the big conference on string theory draws about 500 attendees. That's not a big conference. Not all attend every year. So maybe there are 2000 string theorists. Out of how many physicists? A million? Theorists typically do not require big budgets, so the resources drawn by string theory would likely be quite small as a fraction of the overall research spending. If there's no heavy discussion, part of that would be because nobody's funding is in danger - if you're doing applied research, your source probably isn't competing with string theory sources, and not in a way that you can do much about it. (e.g. if your applied research money comes from DARPA, who cares about string theory funding coming from somewhere else?) String theory, and multiverse, and some other topics get an outsized amount of scrutiny in popular press, but it's not representative of the physics community.

! Moderator Note No, the discussion must take place here, per forum rules This applies to all links; outside papers are not to be substituted for discussion here

I agree. Learning the basics of forces, momentum and energy (mechanics), gravitation, thermodynamics and electromagnetism will be important. These are usually covered in introductory physics classes, but might be broken down by topic, depending on where you look. It’s also possible that an intro astrophysics book/course would cover these; you’d need to check. You’ll need a course that has you work problems. The books geared to popular audiences tell you about the concepts, but you need to be able to apply them to different situations.

When it comes to philosophy? I’d want the take of the philosophy crowd.

I would expect a lot of trial and error was involved, and some happy accidents along the way. I think the SM was developed over time and refined along the way. I don't think there would a be a sharp demarcation between non-science and science while that was happening.

I don't know. I didn't quote you.

I would argue that writing a textbook is. And is learning science the same as doing science? to wit Before they can do science they must learn science.

No, but perhaps not for the same reason that you are thinking

No, that's not where the period went. I also said "physics itself admits that it's making stuff up to make good models" I did not claim that this applies to all of physics. I clarified this several time. Rather than rebutting any of the examples I gave, you have built a straw man and attacked that.

Indeed. The desire to spend the money on a specific target colors the attitudes a great deal. Not so much the economic benefit, though the economic benefit narrative - often decoupled from the facts - can come into play. See e.g. trickle-down economics; even though direct benefits to the poor would have a much larger impact, these are the undeserving poor (from the narrative) so we must instead help the rich. But we could do that anyway. Instead, we get tax cuts for the rich.

How were those techniques developed, if not by methods that fall under experimentation? How does learning e.g. chemistry not fall under reporting? You're the recipient of that reporting.

Money spent goes into the economy Hypothetically When debt is only a problem when the other side is in power, then you know that the debt isn't really the problem.

I've asked the question about how philosophy is intended to help me align my laser, which seems on par with your butterfly measurement question. It seems to be couched more toward "how does philosophy extend its overlap" rather than "how does science extend its overlap" and I have no issue with that, but it does seem that people more adept at philosophy must answer it. It's not contra my view. Can you point to where I introduced any claims about cannonball trajectories? I'm trying to figure out if this is a comprehension issue or if you are being deliberately obtuse.(edit: or possibly a matter of simply not having an understanding of QM or some other areas of physics, so not being able to comment, but then, if you lack familiarity, how can you make a declaration with such certainty?) Some physics does not describe reality, does not mean all of physics does not describe reality. (and you might note that I never made any distinction between observable and non-observable. That goalpost was moved by you)

Good. Because there's lots of physics that are unobservable, as I have previously described. We see the effects of this. But, you disagreed with this. (well, sort of, since you never actually addressed my examples, and instead cherry-picked others) Here's an example of what I just talked about. The cannonball is what you brought up, not me. It's a straw man argument, and you should really stop doing this.

I didn't claim that you did. "reality" is only part of the sentence. Read the whole thing. You balked at my position, which I describe.

The order might be different in some cases, but you have hypothesis/theory, experiment/observation, and reporting, so I'm not sure what's missing.

How is this different from my position that science describes behavior (i.e. what we can observe) rather than reality. (something you balked at)

EldadEshel banned as a sock puppet of Eldad Eshel and Eldad Eshel 2

At some point it's a matter of QM and the uncertainty principle, because we would not be able to simultaneously measure the change in position and change in speed. But I agree gravity doesn't "kick in" at some threshold, according to what we know about gravity.