Comments by "Lil Weasel ♡" (@lil_weasel219) on "Miskoncepce o teplotě" video.

  1. "I believe you" And that is called not understanding what science even is.....
    729
  2.  @Baiedes  one doesnt need to replicate smth personally. Evidence is evidence. No evidence of any kind is no evidence of any kind edit; pfft what a lame comment thisone, I was in a hurry. pljick
    7
  3.  @Baiedes  PS you do t need to have faith, you go and you learn, at least learn enough to be able to draw conclusions. Attaining that level isnt really that hard
    7
  4.  @Baiedes  you don't need to replicate the experience omg, and if you did it would not give any more credibility to your evidence. Your perception is not more reliable than empirical evidence, in fact with all the bias and cognitive distortions,. personal experience of such is an extremely unreliable method of evidencing.
    6
  5.  @Baiedes  you are also omitting any nuance from this. also, as far as "replicating evidence" just look at this example; There is a definite number of times a tiger mosquito has bitten a human in the last 1000 years. This is a real, existent, unequivocalnumber. Yet we cannot ever find out what that number is. And yet we know it exists, we don't need to demonstrate that, or replicate mosquitoes biting folk for 1000 years. But tbh, my neck is bloody dying, so Imma not...continue Ow. I gotta rest som
    3
  6.  @pp7x79  ^^ Science channels tend on avg. towards somewhat more tame brainy discussions, at least when the topic is (relatively) noncontroversial questions
    2
  7. 2:43 Veritasium:"thermal conductivity" The 2 women: uh-uh mhh LOL
    1
  8.  @Shendue  of course they dont lol
    1
  9.  @Baiedes  And now a final section on absolutism, that is demand of absolute objectivity, absolute knowledge and absolute certainty (100%, no decimals) of knowledge. This is in the realm of philosophy, specifically epistemology, and is what you are pointlessly drilling now,like many kids and adults alike have done. But why find me to explain it to you when you have the entire internet at your disposal. Do read into epistemology Find Andrew Rae's answer on this; https://www.quora.com/Can-we-ever-prove-anything-with-absolute-100-accuracy "proof" is limited to mathematics. Natural sciences use provisional evidence. PS It will be sad if you miss it again, but my job here is done. I do not intend on wasting time on folk like this anymore. I have provided you with resources. Read bro. Serving on a platter no more. Wont be replying. EDIT: let me just say that your apparently demonstrated lack of discernment between what a theory is and what a hypothesis is shows a basal lack of education in this field. I think it is rather telling. You learn that even in middle school for the first time, but even if you forget that, if you actually care about what's true, you won't allow such blatant lack of investment in the methods of attaining that truth. Most people dont know the difference and use it wrong. Similarly most folk are abysmal at scientific thinking, and its starkingly correlational
    1