undefined | Better HN

0 pointsUser235y ago0 comments

Thank you for helping clarify what I'm saying. You've definitely got it right. To elaborate, consider the difference between calculating the distance to a star in the Milky Way using parallax where the model is basically just assume your eyes work plus trigonometry and calculating the distance to other galaxies where far more assumptions are required.

Edit: response from cygx is completely missing the point about control vs selection.

0 comments

cygx5y ago

Which is no different in other branches of physics: Have you ever seen a quark?

If you have a model that makes testable predictions, it's science. Cosmology is not only science, but physics, making your original comment contrasting the two kind of nonsensical...

1 more reply

cygx5y ago

response from cygx is completely missing the point about control vs selection

Because your comment I responded to was arguing something different - namely, the number of required assumptions.

Due to confinement, the existence of quarks rests on quite a lot of them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsUser235y ago0 comments

Edit: response from cygx is completely missing the point about control vs selection.

0 comments

cygx5y ago

Which is no different in other branches of physics: Have you ever seen a quark?

If you have a model that makes testable predictions, it's science. Cosmology is not only science, but physics, making your original comment contrasting the two kind of nonsensical...

1 more reply

cygx5y ago

response from cygx is completely missing the point about control vs selection

Because your comment I responded to was arguing something different - namely, the number of required assumptions.

Due to confinement, the existence of quarks rests on quite a lot of them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse