Daily Archives: February 14, 2014

Failure to fail

Important to fail! –many discoveries depend in failure systems! –advancements in, for instance, science depend on failure systems; recall those O-rings, and Feynman’s perseverance for forms of truth, that he wouldn’t have looked for without Challenger’s tragic –and preventable! –failure! –he was relentless, in uncovering what needed to be uncovered! –an idea is to build upon what was believed in the past, to update information, to not be afraid to attempt! –if the “worse” that can happen is “failure” –good! –fail to the best of one’s ability to fail! –too much emphasis is placed on that “highest” grade, but with an “A” a,so comes a ceiling, and that “A” indicates, that a form of “ceiling” has been attained, so there’s nowhere necessary to go; all that could be learned, has been learned! –but with an “F” (for “fine failure”, for instance, there’s many directions to proceed! –I’m so hungry for failure! –will be my lunch (1:22 pm EST)

Blog Blogger Bloggest

failed I was watching a reality TV show recently and one of the eager young contestants proudly boasted, “I have never failed at anything I’ve tried to do!”

He smirked for the camera, and I thought, “Loser!”

Why? Because failing to fail is the greatest failure of all.

View original post 483 more words

Time to ditch falsifiability?

Agreeing with this, in principle, of course. Thanks for this post!


English: An alternate version of :Image:Calabi... (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related to my last two posts, and our discussion, Sean Carroll turned in an answer to the “What Scientific Ideas Are Ready for Retirement?”  His answer?  Falsifiability.

Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.

The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence…

View original post 224 more words