Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by User23 2002 days ago
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.
2 comments
cygx 2002 days 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...

link
cygx 2002 days 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.

link