newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
what we know is from people just as messed up as you and me
Information is anything that reduces uncertainty - anything else is noise e.g. I’m wearing green shoes today - but you weren’t wondering about my shoes, so that’s just noise.
The best way to reduce our uncertainty is to ask the universe questions - and the best way to do that is the scientific method.
Two advantages are that the method tells us how much confidence we can have in the answer, and that all other people can check how we arrived at the answer ( the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba (take nobody's word for it)
perlowkey · 22-25, FNew
@newjaninev2 i’ve never heard of that, thank you! very interesting. i suppose, if im being honest, i don’t feel i have a soul to talk to any of this about. there’s a childlike part of me that feels this way, at least, considering being in the bible belt. i’ve grasped at straws to find connecting dots, but then come to find i very well made the dots connect, as another commenter pointed.
SomeMichGuy · M
@perlowkey Aristotle came up with the outline of the scientific method long ago.
The real meat of it is that science is based upon measurements which are repeatable; to that end, real experiments typically discuss or refer to
• WHY a measurement is desirable (a theoretical basis for what is desired, and perhaps a review of other measurements to date);
• WHICH quantities were measured;
• HOW they were measured (procedure, equipment, etc.);
• WHAT the measured raw data is;
• HOW the raw data was processed to turn it into the desired measurements (if there is a need to do so; "data analysis");
• WHAT error is associated with the measurements / processed values ("error analysis");
• final RESULTS (final data + errors) and DISCUSSION of what they mean, including comparison with theoretical/predicted values, other measurements, how the error might be reduced (if applicable), etc.
That set of things is what one can find in a a journal article which tells the scientific community about an experimental result (as opposed to a theoretical article).
The real meat of it is that science is based upon measurements which are repeatable; to that end, real experiments typically discuss or refer to
• WHY a measurement is desirable (a theoretical basis for what is desired, and perhaps a review of other measurements to date);
• WHICH quantities were measured;
• HOW they were measured (procedure, equipment, etc.);
• WHAT the measured raw data is;
• HOW the raw data was processed to turn it into the desired measurements (if there is a need to do so; "data analysis");
• WHAT error is associated with the measurements / processed values ("error analysis");
• final RESULTS (final data + errors) and DISCUSSION of what they mean, including comparison with theoretical/predicted values, other measurements, how the error might be reduced (if applicable), etc.
That set of things is what one can find in a a journal article which tells the scientific community about an experimental result (as opposed to a theoretical article).
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
View 2 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
redredred · M
186400 means very little from a time when there was neither a standard mile nor any way to accurately note a second of time.