this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
55 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

33391 readers
1073 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

From what would you draw that "what to look at"?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

From predictions that would differentiate between competing models.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Models drawn from observation, assumedly. Hopefully.

(I think that humans are naturally authoritarian. I think that science is still unnatural to us, as a species.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The scientific process derives consensus from not observing what is expected in a theory, rather from repeated failure to observe counter examples to what is expected. This is the whole point of "reject the null hypothesis".

Stated more plainly, a scientific theory is solidified when you put yourself in the shoes of your own fiercest critics, and attempt to question your own idea (in good faith) and fail to observe any evidence to substantiate that criticism. A scientific theory, is then put under that scrutiny for real, and gains consensus when others fail to observe any counter examples for themselves.

So to answer "what to look at", the answer is always, what would your competition look at to try to disprove you? Then look at that, to see if there is anything of substance to discredit your own idea, and save everyone the time and your embarrassment in case there are easy counter examples.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Turns science into more of a debate than just looking and talking. Quality models through conversational darwinianism.