Tariffs

[Zero999]

"Evidence" alone is insufficient.

Too many people accept what they read on social media as evidence.
Ditto from a pretty and trustworthy face, with a voice that is trained to sound authoritative.
Ditto from news sources that have disguised funding and are probably beholden to their backers and/or to people in power.

Science doesn't work on evidence alone. Science requires (1) observation (2) formulation of a hypothesis (3) prediction of the consequences of the hypothesis being true (4) definition of a test for that hypothesis which can falsify the hypothesis (5) running the test and evaluating the results.
Note the key words, which are often forgotten, sometime deliberately.

Without prediction, there can be no science. Hence post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient - witness the gross failures of LLMs in that regard.

Without it being able to fail a test, there can be no science. That's the downfall of many alternative mystics/therapists etc.

I think we agree. You have simply enlarged upon my position where I was using the term "evidence" for brevity. 

However, you say "post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient", but that over-simplifies things too much. It is totally legitimate to look again at data to see if it supports a different scenario better than the existing one. This is how law courts work: the same evidence is interpreted (at least) two different ways, and the jury gets to decide if the prosecution's version is credible "beyond reasonable doubt".

Let's be realistic: in our personal life we don't go about invoking the entire scientific method to satisfy ourselves that biscuits go soggy when dipped in coffee. And when we find a biscuit that doesn't, we happily change our mind to "some biscuits go soggy when dipped in coffee", and we don't usually invoke the entire scientific process to do that.

I would also point out that clinging on to an old opinion because the new one hasn't been rigorously scientifically tested only makes sense when your old opinion was tested with that degree of rigour. And in 99% of cases it wasn't, of course.

Remember that most opinions and beliefs are not based on outcomes of the scientific method. Science doesn't deal in beliefs and opinions, it deals with theories and proofs. So your argument that opinions and beliefs should only change when the scientific community says so is applying the wrong criteria.

If your argument helps you feel better about not changing your mind on something, then you are just rationalising an instinctive resistance to change. We humans are experts at that!

Finally, I am not advocating gullibility, I'm advocating open-minded scepticism.

There are different strengths of evidence, for example, the fact there's a correlation between things, is evidence, but not proof of cause and effect.

Isn't social media a form of evidence? Whether it's reliable or not of course varies, but content i.e. videos, pictures and reports of crimes gathered from social media, have been used as evidence in court to secure a conviction.

I would say there is room for opinion in science, when it isn't possible to have a complete understanding of a system. For example the current mainstream theory for the start of the universe, the big bang, seems plausible and is definitely more likely than the fairy tales written down millennia ago, before humans had any idea, but it's possible it's incorrect and there's an alternative explanation.

[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).

[tggzzz]

"Evidence" alone is insufficient.

Too many people accept what they read on social media as evidence.
Ditto from a pretty and trustworthy face, with a voice that is trained to sound authoritative.
Ditto from news sources that have disguised funding and are probably beholden to their backers and/or to people in power.

Science doesn't work on evidence alone. Science requires (1) observation (2) formulation of a hypothesis (3) prediction of the consequences of the hypothesis being true (4) definition of a test for that hypothesis which can falsify the hypothesis (5) running the test and evaluating the results.
Note the key words, which are often forgotten, sometime deliberately.

Without prediction, there can be no science. Hence post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient - witness the gross failures of LLMs in that regard.

Without it being able to fail a test, there can be no science. That's the downfall of many alternative mystics/therapists etc.

I think we agree. You have simply enlarged upon my position where I was using the term "evidence" for brevity. 

I thought would be your posiion, but others in this thread seem to follow the easier (but erroneous) definitions

However, you say "post-processing existing data to draw a conclusion is insufficient", but that over-simplifies things too much. It is totally legitimate to look again at data to see if it supports a different scenario better than the existing one. This is how law courts work: the same evidence is interpreted (at least) two different ways, and the jury gets to decide if the prosecution's version is credible "beyond reasonable doubt".

Science and law are two very different subjects.

Post processing data can be part of science provided it leads to a testable prediction. Post processing the times of sun rise and my shaving leads to the conclusion that sunrise causes me to shave

There is, however, one form of post processing that is accepted, iff it is done very carefully: Cochrane  reviews.

Let's be realistic: in our personal life we don't go about invoking the entire scientific method to satisfy ourselves that biscuits go soggy when dipped in coffee. And when we find a biscuit that doesn't, we happily change our mind to "some biscuits go soggy when dipped in coffee", and we don't usually invoke the entire scientific process to do that.

OTOH it might lead to the most exciting words in science: not "eureka" but "that's funny..."

I would also point out that clinging on to an old opinion because the new one hasn't been rigorously scientifically tested only makes sense when your old opinion was tested with that degree of rigour. And in 99% of cases it wasn't, of course.

Very true!

It is always beneficial to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Remember that most opinions and beliefs are not based on outcomes of the scientific method. Science doesn't deal in beliefs and opinions, it deals with theories and proofs. So your argument that opinions and beliefs should only change when the scientific community says so is applying the wrong criteria.

If your argument helps you feel better about not changing your mind on something, then you are just rationalising an instinctive resistance to change. We humans are experts at that!

Finally, I am not advocating gullibility, I'm advocating open-minded scepticism.

All true, especially that final paragraph. And that paragraph is all too often ignored.

[tggzzz]

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).

String theory being such an example. That's where physics has stayed into the realm of philosophy. My trivial understanding of string theory is that it cannot be tested due to the limitations and limits of the universe.

[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.