Re: 10 scientific ideas you should stop misusing
there's a scientific consensus that is in agreement that string theory determines the "emergent" characteristics of nature.
oh, sorry, the consensus is in the hundreds.
that's even more convincing.
At least your auntie's musing are able to be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
There's no way to test what you've alleged is responsible for determining the emergence of natural phenomena.
Is there? Lay it out for us here, please.
If you can't then explain the math for us and tell us all why the particular theorem you've chosen is an accurate depiction of the emergent characteristic of nature you're talking about as opposed to a hypothesis that may differ.
Till then you're just mouthing what you agree with
and that's about it.
You should be proud of me. I'm actually coming to the defense of Auntie Interbane.
I say she may not know what she's talking about, but neither do you, really.
I say what she has claimed can be tested, regardless.
At least we have that.
I say what you've claimed to be a determined aspect of nature has NOT been determined, and isn't even close to being determined, and can NOT be tested.
She may be speaking metaphysically, but so are you.
Pointing to the work of abstract mathematics performed by hundreds of intelligent men does not provide you with a carte blanche card to speak with deterministic authority. Stop pretending it does.
If we can put people on trial for there metaphysical claims, we can put people on trial when they claim to speak with the authority of science in their corner.