ScubaBoard signature lines I like ...

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

joh: dive, rinse, repeat :)
 
It's about pseudoscience, or bad science. It means it cannot be proven or even falsified.


Yes, and it's about daily life and scuba diving as well. As divers, we often accept and pass on received wisdom without challenging it.

Is hand swimming inefficient?
Is in-water recompression ineffective?
Do reverse profiles produce more DCS?
Are split fins less efficient than blades?
Is wearing your mask on your forehead bad?
Does use of Nitrox make you feel better after the dive?
Is current OW training hazardous to your health?

If something can be proven, it is right; if it can be disproven, it is wrong. But some theories don't rise to these levels, because there are no facts either way and they cannot be verified because they make no testable predictions.

Claims that cannot be proven or disproven fail to meet science's most basic criterion, which is testability: They are "Not Even Wrong!".
 
Yes, and it's about daily life and scuba diving as well. As divers, we often accept and pass on received wisdom without challenging it.

Is hand swimming inefficient?
Is in-water recompression ineffective?
Do reverse profiles produce more DCS?
Are split fins less efficient than blades?
Is wearing your mask on your forehead bad?
Does use of Nitrox make you feel better after the dive?
Is current OW training hazardous to your health?

If something can be proven, it is right; if it can be disproven, it is wrong. But some theories don't rise to these levels, because there are no facts either way and they cannot be verified because they make no testable predictions.

Claims that cannot be proven or disproven fail to meet science's most basic criterion, which is testability: They are "Not Even Wrong!".


got it ... had to think back to bio 101 days :D
 
I don´t know who is the owner of this signature. I like it :
"Beauty is in the details"
 
I am kind of partial to MY signature line, but Knowone is the only Scubaboard poster who knows what it means.

Its about string theory right? I have the book on my bookshelf. Its waiting for me to stop studying what I am studying right now.
 
"Well-behaved women rarely make history."
 
Its about string theory right? I have the book on my bookshelf. Its waiting for me to stop studying what I am studying right now.

Pauli's quote was used as the title of a book - Not Even Wrong - by Peter Woit on String Theory. Woit's thesis is that String Theory and subsequent developments, including superstrings and M-theory, are wonderfully impressive mathematical constructs. But in spite of decades of work by thousands of physicists worldwide, the theory has yet to deliver anything of practical value, or provide predictions that could be tested.

Woit suggests that all of this very expensive work, by generations of physicists, may turn out to have been a waste. If so, it will be a scientific catastrophe, the Physicist's equivalent of Chernobyl or the BP oil spill.

Not even wrong: the failure of ... - Google Books
 

Back
Top Bottom