By your logic, your “best ever thinker” did not do any science, ever, period - because he was a theoretical physicist.
> “I do not know what scientific process means”.
Maybe that’s the problem right there.
> “I do not know what scientific process means”.
Maybe that’s the problem right there.
I did say one of our best ever thinkers.
The difference is significant!
Now, back to our discussion:
He [Feynman] would say the same!
My logic speaks to the value and importance of the scientific method. My take on that is influenced by Feynman, who is careful to make the difference between theory and the scientific method clear.
Here the method is very well presented by Feynman. His thoughts on the matter are clear and align well with this discussion.
In this case, the method has not yet been applied. Until it is, we really do not have a basis for "evidence" and "shows" being used as they are here.
That is my objection.
"Scientific process" needs some context to be useful.
Also as written, it resembles "cheese food" rather than "cheeze." And yes, I mean "scientific process" rather than "science." The cheese food people really want others to think it is cheese, but it just isn't. The scientific process people seem to really want others to think science, or "scientific method" but it just isn't.
Do you have some context to share, perhaps clarify where I have it wrong?
I will say the same thing here, "this is the don't get me wrong" part of my comment above.
The simulation results are intriguing and warrant the application of the scientific method. Let us query the authority properly and arrive at some understanding!
Once we have that, we may well be able to move the simulation from suggestive to predictive!