Category talk:Scientific hypothesis

"this category should be limited to hypotheses that, at least, have some sort of scientific basis behind them" - then why is the gaia fantasy included? ħuman 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the fantasy is yours, I guess.The Goonie 1 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"It can include previously rejected science." That's even funnier... ħuman 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you dolt. It's because I was thinking of adding "The Hawking Paradox" as an example of a hypothesis that has been disproven.The Goonie 1 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"I thought I'd begun to see a change. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. Backstabbing and name-calling-trademarks of your act. You talk and talk of unity, but divde when your attacked. 'I'd like to see a change. I'd like to see a change. I'd like to see a change. But I'M too busy.... Tearing everyone down... Tearing everyone down.... All us folks, try to make that change. SOme kids start a band, others start a zine. You, no matter what your path, throw a curve in what could be achieved, then give up and move onto some other thing." - Justin SaneThe Goonie 1 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fucking Christ. To quote my friend Adam, "If you think you can dp better, than DO it! But sitting back and looking like an ass accomplishes zilch!"The Goonie 1 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A paradox is not a hypothesis. You need a hypothesis to explain as apparent paradox or a paradox can arise from a hypothesis, especially if the hypothesis is false. Also the black hole information paradox, is still heavily conjectured it is not a disproved hypothesis. - π 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Goonie, did I piss you off because I think the Gaia thing is fucking loonie pseudoscientific bullshit? Just because something is promoted by "scientist" doesn't make it science. See also Michael Behe. Oh, and you accused me of namecalling on my talk page after calling me a "dolt" here? That's funny! (Actually, I think it is, don't worry, it doesn't bother me - did you enjoy last night when M Malloy celebrated Bloomsday?) ħuman 03:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did. Gotta love Malloy.The Goonie 1 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I got warm all over because I knew what the freaky fucker was talking about due to my daily RW recent changes thing. Gotta love Malloy, the guy's insane but he he has a deep, deep heart. ħuman 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I love Malloy because he is the on;y one on liberal talk radio who doesn't hold back his raw emotions. While I like the cerebral Thom Hartmann as well, I think he sometimes just too nice of a guy to call people directly out on their bullshit. Mike Malloy, on the other hand, seems to say exactly what I am thinking.The Goonie 1 07:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This Category

I still think this is a good category, though, because hypotheses and SWAG (an unofficial mechanical engineering term: Scientific Wild Ass Guess) are THE most important part of the scientific method. Without them, we wouldn't be able to use deductive analysis resulting from failures, nor would we be able to determine what it is that could be tested/verified. Like I said before, I am hoping to expand this category with the good, the bad, and the ugly hypotheses to further demonstrate this part of the scientific method.The Goonie 1 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rockin' Goonie. ħuman 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)