this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
19 points (95.2% liked)
askchapo
23237 readers
102 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Carefully constructed models on what should exist, and how those things should behave if they exist, then experiments that show these things behaving as predicted, therefore validating the model. It's an inductive process like dialectics. You move between theory and praxis, updating theory and adjusting action. Though this kind of paints a picture that all science is experimental when it's not and yet is equally valid. Like lots of stuff in geology can't be observed directly due to time scales or ran as a experiment. In a way there's more experimental data supporting the wave-particle duality of light than experiments supporting plate tectonics. It becomes just thinking about stuff really hard, and looking at stuff very closely to make sure you're observing it the right way. Make predictions about what you should find next if you're correct.
spoiler
I mean there are measurements of ocean floor spread but that's less about testing the theory and more about seeing how fast or how much. It's not an experiment like someone constructing a clever inference device to understand the nature of a particle, all based entirely on models and theory.That clever inference device is a particle collider. The theory makes a prediction that a specific interaction will happen at a specific energy level and then you spool up the collider and see if it happens.
I was more referring to the dual slit experiment because it's such a simple thing that anyone can do at home and is about very abstract theoretical physics but is tangible and comprehensible (mostly). My post was more trying to point out that geology seems more GROUNDED than theoretical physics but all science isn't experimental and empiricism isn't everything. I also wrote that post at like 4 am so I may have worded it very poorly. I'm more commenting on the idea that there is known experimental science versus unknown theoretical science, where something like chemistry or geology is the former and wacky particle physics is the latter. It's not a dichotomy. Other people answered the specific question so I was addressing something I saw that nobody commented on.