first of all thank your for the time to write your response as i said i am new here and it means a lot.
i am sorry if my post came off as authoritative but to me it seems you came off more as authoritative than i did. i generally think that it is better to write something novel and wrong than regurgitate already said information. if you have critiques of my ideas as you suggest by saying "(Then, if those resources themselves leave you with confusion, you can express it and work on the problem from there. Alternatively, you could work through the whole problem yourself from first principles, and potentially provide... (read more)
genuinely want to know why this got 21 downvotes. i am new to the culture of less wrong.
is it because?
1: the ideas are trash
2:the formatting is trash
3:it is incomprehensible
seriously please tell me
sinceraly
-not the sprayer
Science relies on philosophy and the current philosophy of science is limited and in some cases useless. We need a new epistemology that is not scientific in nature to answer big questions.
The scientific method in principle is as follows; predict, test, interpret, theorize, repeat, this has major problems. The root of the issue is that for any set of data there are theoretically infinite possible explanations. In modern science we have no way to distinguish between these different possibilities. Oftentimes Occam’s Razor is used as an intuitive fill in for reasoning but intuition is known to be flawed at least in some circumstances. The reason why our scientific method will never realize... (read 464 more words →)
first of all thank you for your response.
thank you for your precision, in the future i will assure you that i will try to be more clear in my writing(this is hard for me being both autistic and dyslexic) but even with this your downvote is understandable.
do you have any critique of the idea?