Foster, is that you ?

 

@taskforce From a few pages back.

 

No. You can't simply change my mind or the fact that I like myself

 

Oh, i thought, for once lemme just not go through all pages... thnx

 

pancakes

 

this kind of thread should be on every forum of the internet but AudioSex

 

That's for sure...although there certainly are many iterations of both guys and the dolls.

 

Yes, but it depends on what you are talking about. As previously stated you need to more, a lot more background knowledge to even be able to understand the question you are asking, because you are not the first one who asked the same question. There are entire sections in libraries dedicated to your question and similar questions, you do not need our input on it, but you have to willing to have the foundation necessary to even to begin to understand what all those old idiots are talking about in those dusty and musky books.

Not all science is theory based, there are laws and there are theories. Laws are going to generally be observational or hard science laws and even if they are not always 100% understood they work predictably 100% of time for us at the energy scales we are capable of producing and using. No human being on Earth needs to worry about the validity of something like 2nd law of thermodynamics because no human being on Earth has a singularity such a Black Hole, Worm Hole, or Cosmic String in their back pocket to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are theories that should be laws but a general lack of will to force the opposition into embarrassment prevails because humans are social animals and we must respect each others' belief to a certain point.

Things move slowly, but people are impatient creatures. As an example take this fact that was theorized in 1861 after Archaeopteryx discovered and was known to be a fact by 1957 because of Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA in 1954 and subsequent improvements in sequencing techniques and went through rancorous debates from 1970s till the turn of the century, 'birds are dinosaurs'; meaning that all avian species today descend from avian dinosaurs species.

It took from 1957 to 1998 for this fact, which isn't really a contested fact if you understand enough of the evidence be able to digest it, as to be finally forced onto everyone that wants to call themselves a biologist. There will always be holdouts but in time there will be less and less of them, but they will never disappear (i.e. some people still really think the Earth is flat and risk their lives trying to prove it.)

There are also hard sciences such as mathematics that in the purest forms leave no room for ambiguity, results are either valid or not, even if only a handful of people are capable of following what it actually going on.

The subject of certainty is also a personal one, as one can be 100% certain something is right but that thing might be based on faith, and then people can argue for or against it based upon their faiths.

Then you get into the subjects that are on the bleeding edge of discovery or are lacking datum, these are the theories you mention (though some of them are only social theories but scientific law.) The issue though is that even those people who are intelligent enough to understand the depth of something like String Theory or Deep Relativity will plead ignorance at a certain point, but people who can barely understand the concept of mass and energy as a disruptive force on space time will get on a soap box and rant endlessly about the nature of cosmos and who X theory invalidates Y.

Relativity is a work in progress and subject to changes on very large scales and at extreme velocities it's not perfect but it works very well. The faults it does have at massive scales are of no real concern to the average joe. For the average joe even classical Newtonian physics is more than enough to get an understanding of what is happening around them.

The hallmark of an intelligent reasoner is to accumulate enough knowledge to know when it is necessary to plead one's own ignorance. There is no shame in not knowing something as it is the first step in deciding to explore for an answer, however one must concede that in order to discover something one must know a bit of everything about the how things actually work.

I

 

Why wait for someone to try to change your mind? Let the truth do it.

 

How many of these do you suggest to get started? What are the most important ones and less important?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_ending_in_ology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_branches_of_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

 

Regrettably that question is you reverting to your more disingenuous trollster-like games (and very transparently)
That question is designed solely to provoke banter rather than you seriously seeking advice.

The serious advice (that you don't actually seek) is you need to find your own educational path.
But just as importantly, you need to actually start walking down that path (by yourself)
instead of just dancing round the edges as an attention seeking spectacle for others.

The novelty of dancing around the edges will grow tired and stale for you one day.
Seriously walking down the path never gets old.
You're smart enough - start walking

---
edit: oops typos

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2020

Quoted For Truth

 

I need to print this and read it every morning

 

Freedom from something is no freedom at all.

 

Human beings are a species of monkey.

 

Technically totally incorrect (of course)
but all impersonations deserve a round of applause

 

I don't want to judge you because I have no right to do so.

Finding a way in the past was rather easy because the ways were limited, but the great interest of people in increasing the number of ways, made the choices more difficult.

Now the main issue isn't the choice of a limited number of these ways. No matter how much information and awareness we have, we still can't be completely sure.

The example you yourself gave of data and statistical processes is a good example of saying that you can never achieve the highest reliability because there is no time and no access to the unbridled amount of updated information and processing for everyone.

Science is expanding rapidly and the number of data is increasing as a result. Random selections and random processes can not be solve the problems.

In the past, sciences were separate and researchers were working in their own fields to theorize and formulate, now there are extensive connections between sciences but unfortunately updated data are not always available. Very fast computational methods are needed to use large volumes of information, which naturally isn't possible for someone like me or you alone.

 

We know nothing

 

I'm not sure, I've never tried. What's it like?

 

R2R Can't crack anything.