Science experiment

veya_victaous wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The point remains - Ben was talking bullshit about how scientific experimentation works. If you want to defend that then you're malign yourself to look like a prize t.

As for Fermat, was his theorem proved by experimentation or mathematical deduction? Do you know the difference?

Mathematical Experimentations (there was literally a computer going through every possible combination By 1993, Fermat's Last Theorem had been proven for all primes less than four million.)...  the Mathematical Expression was not completed until 1995.
An experiment is of no scientific value unless it can be quantified mathematically. All true Sciences are an extension of Mathematics.

And Ben Simplified the Process BUT so are you.  You point out the beginning, that is correct but then the peer review process does fulfil the function that Ben stated. Thus you are correct that is how a Hypothesis is presented for Peer Review, and Ben is also correct that the Peer Review will try and disprove/dispute the hypothesis.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Mathematical Experimentations (there was literally a computer going through every possible combination By 1993, Fermat's Last Theorem had been proven for all primes less than four million.)...  the Mathematical Expression was not completed until 1995.
An experiment is of no scientific value unless it can be quantified mathematically. All true Sciences are an extension of Mathematics.

And Ben Simplified the Process BUT so are you.  You point out the beginning, that is correct but then the peer review process does fulfil the function that Ben stated. Thus you are correct that is how a Hypothesis is presented for Peer Review, and Ben is also correct that the Peer Review will try and disprove/dispute the hypothesis.

No - peer review comes AFTER the experiment to see of people get the same results using the experiment. Why the fuck arer you confusing the experimental process with what happens after it, I have no idea. But it's stupid.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No - peer review comes AFTER the experiment to see of people get the same results using the experiment. Why the fuck arer you confusing the experimental process with what happens after it, I have no idea. But it's stupid.

Because Science is not one experiment, MOST peer reviewers are trying to prove it wrong so they can prove their one right. Yes you version of the experimental process is acceptable for a high school student, it is not however acceptable for a Professor or reaseaching Doctor to stop there. That is STEP 1. your whole list of steps is just the first Phase of the process od gettign something published let alone Accepted as a Peer Reiview theory.