Unfortunately your “rightness” is rather hollow, because you still have no definitive experiment that would convince your opponent. And so the argument becomes philosophical rather than physical, as it cannot be resolved by the scientific method.
If your argument can be resolved by the scientific method, then why even bother arguing? You’re often not that lucky. Should the government be bigger or smaller? In principle, you could randomly sort the 50 states into three groups where you increase the budget of one, decrease the budget of another, and leave the last as a control, but nobody’s going to do that.
If your argument can be resolved by the scientific method, then why even bother arguing?
To come up with an argument which can be tested experimentally. At least in physics, which is the subject area here.
You’re often not that lucky.
Alas.
Should the government be bigger or smaller? In principle, you could randomly sort the 50 states into three groups where you increase the budget of one, decrease the budget of another, and leave the last as a control, but nobody’s going to do that.
Ah, but there are other ways. There are 200 other countries in the world, and some come very close to the experiments you want to perform, now or in the past. Does gun control reduce crime? Tested. Does universal healthcare reduce medical expenditures? Tested. Does changing attitudes toward women in STEM improve the fraction of exceptional women scientists? Tested. Does decriminalizing marijuana lead to more drug use? Tested.
You can argue about these issues with all the Bayesian might until cows come home, it is no substitute for a good experiment.
There are 200 other countries in the world, and some come very close to the experiments you want to perform, now or in the past.
They let you look for correlations. They don’t let you run a good experiment. People can come up with theories that explain the facts, just as MWI and the Copenhagen Interpretation explain the facts. Science won’t save us here.
If your argument can be resolved by the scientific method, then why even bother arguing? You’re often not that lucky. Should the government be bigger or smaller? In principle, you could randomly sort the 50 states into three groups where you increase the budget of one, decrease the budget of another, and leave the last as a control, but nobody’s going to do that.
To come up with an argument which can be tested experimentally. At least in physics, which is the subject area here.
Alas.
Ah, but there are other ways. There are 200 other countries in the world, and some come very close to the experiments you want to perform, now or in the past. Does gun control reduce crime? Tested. Does universal healthcare reduce medical expenditures? Tested. Does changing attitudes toward women in STEM improve the fraction of exceptional women scientists? Tested. Does decriminalizing marijuana lead to more drug use? Tested.
You can argue about these issues with all the Bayesian might until cows come home, it is no substitute for a good experiment.
They let you look for correlations. They don’t let you run a good experiment. People can come up with theories that explain the facts, just as MWI and the Copenhagen Interpretation explain the facts. Science won’t save us here.