[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No. Evolution is not a theory.

Darwin's theory is of speciation and does not suggest the underlying mechanism of evolution, merely that circumstance may favor the survival of particular characteristics.

The Lamarckian theory of the mechanism of evolution lacks any rationale or evidence.

Why can't it be both?
There are facts of electromagnetism, and there are theories of electromagnetism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Science is in trouble and it worries me

Innovation is slowing, research productivity is declining, scientific work is becoming more disruptive. In this video I summarize what we know about the problem and what possible causes have been proposed. I also explain why this matters so much to me.

Clarification to what I say at 3:10 -- As with the previous figure, the blue lines show the growth in the yield, see figure title and axis label. Sorry for expressing this so vaguely.

00:00 Intro
00:33 Numbers
06:33 Causes
10:32 Speculations
16:25 Bullshit Research
22:06 Epilogue

[alancalverd]

Why can't it be both?

Because it isn't. We know it happens (fact known to everyone, for ever) and when it happens, we observe changes in DNA codes (fact discovered in my lifetime). But there is (so far) no usefully predictive theory that tells us what to expect when an organism evolves.

[alancalverd]

scientific work is becoming more disruptive.

It is supposed to be. There's no point in confirming what you already know. The value of research is the extent to which the result surprises you.

[Bored chemist]

Why can't it be both?

Because it isn't. We know it happens (fact known to everyone, for ever) and when it happens, we observe changes in DNA codes (fact discovered in my lifetime). But there is (so far) no usefully predictive theory that tells us what to expect when an organism evolves.

Things like glyphosate resistance were predicted.

[alancalverd]

I guess it's a reasonable expectation that some mutants might prosper where the majority fail, and that's certainly the case for bacteria, but you'd be hard pressed to describe the survivor's DNA in advance of finding it.

If you have a toxin that targets a particular byte of genetic code, obviously any survivors wouldn't have that byte in a vulnerable form, but what else would be predictably different? And since that difference was present and statistically insignificant previously (we are talking about survivors, not new creations) does resistance mean the evolution of a new species, or just selection within an existing one?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why can't it be both?

Because it isn't. We know it happens (fact known to everyone, for ever) and when it happens, we observe changes in DNA codes (fact discovered in my lifetime). But there is (so far) no usefully predictive theory that tells us what to expect when an organism evolves.

Georgia can be the name of a state. It can also be the name of a country.
Likewise, evolution can be the name of some set of facts. It can also be the name of some theories.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There's no point in confirming what you already know. The value of research is the extent to which the result surprises you.

Some research is still necessary to convince the sceptics. They need more accessible evidence, something that they can relate to what they already know.

[alancalverd]

Likewise, evolution can be the name of some set of facts. It can also be the name of some theories.

There's a big difference between "can be" and "is".

As I live in England, have played for an English club, and have not had a trial for any other national side, I can be a Test cricketer. But I'm not and never will be. 

[alancalverd]

Some research is still necessary to convince the sceptics.

Dangerous point of view! The business of science is scepticism!

Policy-based evidence-making may result in the extermination of homo sapiens.

[Bored chemist]

It is supposed to be. There's no point in confirming what you already know.

Are you familiar with the story of Galileo dropping things from the Tower of Pisa?

He knew from a thought-experiment what the outcome would be...

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some research is still necessary to convince the sceptics.

Dangerous point of view! The business of science is scepticism!

Policy-based evidence-making may result in the extermination of homo sapiens.

How do you make decisions without being convinced about the expected results first?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Like most people, I learned about science, technology, and philosophy from school/college, textbooks, and online sources, including wikipedia, quora, science web sites, and science forums.

I have to admit that chatbots are also my information sources now. They can save time to search and read TLDR documents, but verification and cross checks are still necessary.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How do you make decisions without being convinced about the expected results first?

Courage is knowing what not to fear.

Plato

High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon!!!

Amazing Physics Experiments from Dr Irwin Moon. In this video you can see High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon! Also you can see many high voltages experiments. Finally you can see a resonance experiment. Enjoy!!!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are many questions I want to find out the answers, but I only have finite time to pursue them. For now, I'll just focus on a few of them, based on their importance/significance of their impacts, how much efforts are required, and how close or how likely I think I have the chance to solve them.

Here's an updated task list, sorted for the importance to future society.
Identifying the universal terminal goal.
Identifying the universal moral standard.
Building an accurate and precise virtual universe, which includes:
Unifying gravity and electromagnetism in a physical model.
Building a more intuitive model to describe propagation of light and how it interacts with matter.
Solving some long standing math problems like Riemann Riemann' hypothesis and Cantor's continuum hypothesis.

[alancalverd]

High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon!!!

High current through the body? I think not. Skin effect is significant at 65 kHz and any current greater than 10 mA through the heart can be fatal.

[alancalverd]

How do you make decisions without being convinced about the expected results first?

Only economists and politicians are convinced about the results before doing the experiment. And they blame everyone else if it turns out wrong.

Good recent example after the UK election whitewash: every Tory politician interviewed on the radio said he was let down by the Party, and every Party agent said they were let down by the politicians.

[alancalverd]

He knew from a thought-experiment what the outcome would be...

And Aristotle, the Pope, and everyone else, knew from a thought-experiment that it would be something else. The difference is that Galileo did an actual experiment that could have disproved his theory - that's science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

He knew from a thought-experiment what the outcome would be...

And Aristotle, the Pope, and everyone else, knew from a thought-experiment that it would be something else. The difference is that Galileo did an actual experiment that could have disproved his theory - that's science.

That's why physical experiments are still needed.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The reproducibility crisis and other problems in science | John Ioannidis

John Ioannidis discusses his famous 2005 paper "Why most published research finding are false" and assesses how much progress we've made since then.

Has the research environment significantly improved?

Twenty years ago, Stanford professor John Ioannidis shocked the scientific world by publishing evidence demonstrating that the majority of published scientific claims are false. It was hugely influential and led to the widespread recognition of a 'replicability crisis' in science. Join John Ioannidis to hear first-hand how he thinks things have moved on from his initial research and what he thinks needs to be done to rescue science from its falsehoods.

John Ioannidis is a physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, meta-research primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences.

The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.

00:00 Introduction
00:25 Original paper
02:40 Ever-accumulating data sets
04:30 Biases in science
05:27 Statistical significance
07:55 Three types of scientists
09:48 Megajournals
11:30 Paper mills