Tariffs

[Zero999]

The scientific theory of the big bang makes predictions that can be verified or disproven, such as the microwave background radiation.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation
That's an example of how science evaluates theories and evidence.
Theories that do not make concrete predictions can be considered as mere speculation (a legitimate intellectual activity).

It doesn't explain everything though. So far dark matter hasn't been observed.

That doesn't prove it's wrong, just that it's not 100% proven.

[vad]

The scientific theory of the big bang makes predictions that can be verified or disproven, such as the microwave background radiation.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation
That's an example of how science evaluates theories and evidence.
Theories that do not make concrete predictions can be considered as mere speculation (a legitimate intellectual activity).

It doesn't explain everything though. So far dark matter hasn't been observed.

No scientific theory is designed to explain “everything”. For example, theories of everything do not aim to explain biological evolution.

The dark matter was first observed (from the unexpectedly high rotation speeds of stars in galaxies), and later it was given its name.

[tszaboo]

The scientific theory of the big bang makes predictions that can be verified or disproven, such as the microwave background radiation.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation
That's an example of how science evaluates theories and evidence.
Theories that do not make concrete predictions can be considered as mere speculation (a legitimate intellectual activity).

It doesn't explain everything though. So far dark matter hasn't been observed.

That doesn't prove it's wrong, just that it's not 100% proven.

Science doesn't explain morality.
Morality is made up by our society over thousands of years, slowly evolving, changing. The ultimate goal seems to be to improve safety, efficiency and to make our life more bearable. And that's what's under attack by the woke types.
The bigger problem is that the science has been corrupted in the past few years. Entire fields exist that call themselves scientist, and they don't follow the scientific method. At all. Social sciences is 100% like that. And entire fields popped up that start with results, and find or fabricate evidence for it. And then they complain that we don't "follow the science".
If I see a peer reviewed article in a science journal, with sources, and repeatable measurements, that's probably the best representation of our knowledge.
If I see one from the postmodern social sciences, it's not even good as toilet paper.

[tggzzz]

If I see one from the postmodern social sciences, it's not even good as toilet paper.

PoMoLitCrit is an entertaining example.

It is about as useful as post-modern facts, sometimes called "alternative facts" by some politicians and their mouthpieces.

[TimFox]

The scientific theory of the big bang makes predictions that can be verified or disproven, such as the microwave background radiation.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation
That's an example of how science evaluates theories and evidence.
Theories that do not make concrete predictions can be considered as mere speculation (a legitimate intellectual activity).

It doesn't explain everything though. So far dark matter hasn't been observed.

That doesn't prove it's wrong, just that it's not 100% proven.

The current philosophy of science accepts that no theory is ever "proven", but that a theory can be "disproven", and if it works well for a long time without being disproven, then it is perhaps right and certainly useful.
Lavoisier disproved the "phlogiston" theory of fire by careful weighing of the combustion products.
(That older theory stated that burning released phlogiston from the fuel, rather than by adding oxygen to it.  Oxygen itself was called "dephlogisticated air".)

[Zero999]

The scientific theory of the big bang makes predictions that can be verified or disproven, such as the microwave background radiation.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_CMB_radiation
That's an example of how science evaluates theories and evidence.
Theories that do not make concrete predictions can be considered as mere speculation (a legitimate intellectual activity).

It doesn't explain everything though. So far dark matter hasn't been observed.

No scientific theory is designed to explain “everything”. For example, theories of everything do not aim to explain biological evolution.

The dark matter was first observed (from the unexpectedly high rotation speeds of stars in galaxies), and later it was given its name.

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

[vad]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

[Zero999]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

[vad]

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

So, by your standard of “direct observation”, since quarks and gluons have never been directly observed (and never will be, as they cannot exist freely), you must also reject their existence, along with the strong force and the entire framework of quantum chromodynamics.

And since virtual particles have also never been directly observed, you’d have to dismiss the validity of all quantum field theories, including quantum electrodynamics, the most successful quantum theory to date.

Perfect.

PS. How do you feel about the shape of the Earth? Do you believe it is flat?

[TimFox]

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

So, by your standard of “direct observation”, since quarks and gluons have never been directly observed (and never will be, as they cannot exist freely), you must also reject their existence, along with the strong force and the entire framework of quantum chromodynamics.

And since virtual particles have also never been directly observed, you’d have to dismiss the validity of all quantum field theories, including quantum electrodynamics, the most successful quantum theory to date.

Perfect.

PS. How do you feel about the shape of the Earth? Do you believe it is flat?

Again, the theories of quarks and virtual products make predictions of effects that have been verified.
The frequency of the "Lamb shift" (q.v.) predicted by quantum electrodynamics agrees with measurements to extremely high accuracy.

[tszaboo]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

Did anyone observe the tariffs?

[PlainName]

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

So, by your standard of “direct observation”, since quarks and gluons have never been directly observed (and never will be, as they cannot exist freely), you must also reject their existence, along with the strong force and the entire framework of quantum chromodynamics.

I think you have either misunderstood what he wrote or willfully twisted it into something that fits your preconceived takedown.

PS. How do you feel about the shape of the Earth? Do you believe it is flat?

There was no cause to stoop that low.

[tggzzz]

I think you have either misunderstood what he wrote or willfully twisted it into something that fits your preconceived takedown.

That comment is valid in too many places/subjects in this thread and elsewhere

[Zero999]

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

So, by your standard of “direct observation”, since quarks and gluons have never been directly observed (and never will be, as they cannot exist freely), you must also reject their existence, along with the strong force and the entire framework of quantum chromodynamics.

And since virtual particles have also never been directly observed, you’d have to dismiss the validity of all quantum field theories, including quantum electrodynamics, the most successful quantum theory to date.

Perfect.

PS. How do you feel about the shape of the Earth? Do you believe it is flat?

Nowhere have I done any of that.

You're either deliberately twisting my words, or you lack basic reading comprehension.

[TimFox]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

Did anyone observe the tariffs?

Yes, I think the bookkeepers in the relevant revenue department have carefully recorded them when applied.

[tszaboo]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

Did anyone observe the tariffs?

Yes, I think the bookkeepers in the relevant revenue department have carefully recorded them when applied.

Yes, but have you really seen it? I haven't. It's probably only a report that the tariffs exists.
What does it even mean to exist?
How can you observe anything?
What if you are sitting in a cave and everything you ever observe is the shadows of the real things?

[tggzzz]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

Did anyone observe the tariffs?

Yes, I think the bookkeepers in the relevant revenue department have carefully recorded them when applied.

Yes, but have you really seen it? I haven't. It's probably only a report that the tariffs exists.
What does it even mean to exist?
How can you observe anything?
What if you are sitting in a cave and everything you ever observe is the shadows of the real things?

I can't observe you therefore you don't exist.

Solipsism rulez.

[tggzzz]

Dark matter has never been obserbed. It's believed to exist, because it explains other phenonoma and holds other calculations together.

Could you please elaborate on the standards you use when declaring whether something has been observed or not?

In your opinion, have quarks been observed? Have gluons been observed? What about virtual particles?

Did anyone observe the tariffs?

Yes...

H1 tariff revenues for the US were $87.2 billion of which $26.6 billion was raised in June alone, according to  the US Treasury Department.
$17.7 billion came from 10% flat-rate tariffs and $10.7 billion from sector-specific tariffs on automobiles.
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/us-tariffs-bring-in-87bn-in-h1-2025-07/

That's a lot of money that can be used for tax cuts for the rich. I wonder if they will actually notice and/or change their lives in any way.

[vad]

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

So, by your standard of “direct observation”, since quarks and gluons have never been directly observed (and never will be, as they cannot exist freely), you must also reject their existence, along with the strong force and the entire framework of quantum chromodynamics.

And since virtual particles have also never been directly observed, you’d have to dismiss the validity of all quantum field theories, including quantum electrodynamics, the most successful quantum theory to date.

Perfect.

PS. How do you feel about the shape of the Earth? Do you believe it is flat?

Nowhere have I done any of that.

You're either deliberately twisting my words, or you lack basic reading comprehension.

I apologize, especially for the flat Earth.

Similar to QCD, the Lambda CDM standard model of cosmology (where CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter) also makes  predictions that have been confirmed by indirect observations: abundances of light elements, temperature fluctuations in CMB, preferred scale in the distribution of galaxies caused by baryon acoustic oscillations in the early Universe.

The evolution of the Universe from about 1 second after the Big Bang onward is accurately described by the Lambda CDM. Currently, no alternative model that excludes CDM is widely accepted by astrophysicists.

[Zero999]

None of the above have been directly observed, but there is more evidence to support quarks, because experiments can be performed which produce repetable results which suggest their existance. The same isn't true of dark matter, which can only be inferred by obervations of the universe.

So, by your standard of “direct observation”, since quarks and gluons have never been directly observed (and never will be, as they cannot exist freely), you must also reject their existence, along with the strong force and the entire framework of quantum chromodynamics.

And since virtual particles have also never been directly observed, you’d have to dismiss the validity of all quantum field theories, including quantum electrodynamics, the most successful quantum theory to date.

Perfect.

PS. How do you feel about the shape of the Earth? Do you believe it is flat?

Nowhere have I done any of that.

You're either deliberately twisting my words, or you lack basic reading comprehension.

I apologize, especially for the flat Earth.

Similar to QCD, the Lambda CDM standard model of cosmology (where CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter) also makes  predictions that have been confirmed by indirect observations: abundances of light elements, temperature fluctuations in CMB, preferred scale in the distribution of galaxies caused by baryon acoustic oscillations in the early Universe.

The evolution of the Universe from about 1 second after the Big Bang onward is accurately described by the Lambda CDM. Currently, no alternative model that excludes CDM is widely accepted by astrophysicists.

Thanks for the apology.

I think you've missed my point, which wasn't that the big bang is bunk, just that it isn't as solidly proven as other theories.

[vad]

I think you've missed my point, which wasn't that the big bang is bunk, just that it isn't as solidly proven as other theories.

You also missed my point. The dark matter has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. CDM is a physical phenomenon in its own right. It is part of the well established theory (Lambda CDM model that have made predictions confirmed by observations) that is far less speculative than theories attempting to describe the Big Bang and the 1st second of the universe.

[vad]

… speculative theories include the theory of cosmic inflation. And speaking of “inflation”, I can circle back to this thread’s topic: tariffs and monetary inflation that starts to rise in the US  due to it.

[floobydust]

Trump just announced 100% tariffs on semi's  This has to be beyond brutal for American manufacturers. It takes YEARS to plan and build fabs. Oh they cost a bit too.
I know politicians are stupid and corrupt, but this is a pipe dream to bring home semi fab...

“We’ll be putting a tariff, approximately 100%, on chips and semiconductors,” Trump said at an Oval Office event with Apple CEO Tim Cook, who arrived to announce plans for $600 billion in new investments in the US.
"Trump said he would exempt companies that have plans to transition their manufacturing to the US — a hint that the world’s largest chip manufacturer, Taiwan’s TSMC, which is building massive manufacturing plants in Arizona, would be spared."
“If you’re building in the United States of America, there’s no charge, even though you’re building and you’re not producing yet in terms of the big numbers of jobs and all of the things that you’re building. If you’re building there will be no charge,” Trump said.
“So 100% tariff on all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States. But if you’ve made a commitment to build, or if you’re in the process of building, as many are, there is no tariff.”

[Monkeh]

“So 100% tariff on all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States. But if you’ve made a commitment to build, or if you’re in the process of building, as many are, there is no tariff.”

Translation: Only giant monopolistic businesses which can afford to buy him the occasional golf course are welcome.

[vad]

“So 100% tariff on all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States. But if you’ve made a commitment to build, or if you’re in the process of building, as many are, there is no tariff.”

Translation: Only giant monopolistic businesses which can afford to buy him the occasional golf course are welcome.

The S&P 500 and NASDAQ rose during the day and continued surging after hours. I guess Wall Street has given up paying attention to tariff announcements - tonight he introduced something he might TACO from by noon tomorrow.