Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 148:
:The problem is one of a distinction between predictions that are 'correct' phenomenologically – that is, predictions that offer accurate descriptions of real phenomena – versus predictions that offer correct underlying reasoning. [[Alfred Wegener]]'s initial theory of continental drift, for example, was descriptively correct; continents really did move about on the Earth's surface, and they did form the supercontinent of Pangaea in the past. On the other hand, elements of Wegener's reasoning were quite faulty. Wegener suggested that the driving force for drift might be ''[[Polflucht]]'' (literally 'flight from the poles'): centrifugal force caused by the rotating Earth, pushing the continents 'outward' towards Earth's [[equatorial bulge]]. So the idea of continental drift was correct, but the reasoning behind it was wrong. Lindert's example above of Copernican theory is an even more stark example—planets certainly orbit the sun; planets don't do so because roughly-circular orbits are philosophically ideal. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:Acupuncture may be an example. Theory is a lot of mumbo-jumbo about flows of qi, and meridians. It's quite implausible. However, it seems to mostly work. Ratbone[[Special:Contributions/121.221.128.125|121.221.128.125]] ([[User talk:121.221.128.125|talk]]) 03:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
== Regarding effect of an AC signal on a BJT. ==
| |||