I stand by a theory only needing to predict upward of 99% of the time, thinking say Newton’s theory of gravity which is generally spot on but couldn’t nail the relativistic anomaly of Mercury and such things
Ish. Theories can't be almost or slightly correct. They're either 100% right, or they're altered to become 100% right when evidence of being wrong is presented. Newton being slightly off with Mercury throws off the entire theory and once the errors are corrected,
that will become the accepted method and they won't use Newtons version.
And my tongue in cheek suggestion of 99% of science is disproving hypotheses is to draw attention to the fact that most ideas are wrong, nailing down a new theory is the diamond in the rough so to speak;
Not at all to suggest that 99% is a waste, science just requires a lot of indirect bother like everything else, failure is the first step toward success...or something
I wasn't suggesting you'd said it was a waste. My point being that all science exists to further ideas through constant testing. And it's not a bad thing that even the greats are having their work constantly evaluated and broken as more ideas / technology / time gets thrown at the problem.
My example are things like the standard measurement units. A kilogram is accepted as 1000grams and has been for a very long time, but the
exact definition has very recently changed to become much more precise. Same with the metre, second etc. This isn't because they were wrong, but because they're too ambiguous for the level of precision that we're working with in the 21st century and needed tying down to the nearest atom or multi-millionth of a metric.
A bad idea isn't a waste of time, as long as someone is learning and any kind of experimentation, done even at the lowest level, is still hypothesis > theory > law.
Example.
Hypothesis: testing an electric fence by licking it is a bad idea
Theory: the sign says that fence is electrified. So I will test if it is, using my tongue.
Results: got fucking shocked by the electric fence.
Conclusion: Horus' first Law of Electric Fences. licking a live electric fence is a bad idea.
Is that a waste? Possibly. Did someone learn a valuable lesson? Absolutely.
There are less...extreme...examples (like the ones you did in school to prove the boiling point of water) that weren't pushing the boundaries of science but proved to you that took the claim in a book/from a teacher/from a sign and proved it for you, moving that statement from a theory to a fact.
And then really, sci-fi writers and conspiracy wackos don’t qualify to make hypotheses, they make BS for fun;
Scientists have standards
I don't believe that should be the case. Sci fi writers and wackos can absolutely make hypotheses and theories and I don't see why not.
Flat Earthers can make all the hypothesis and theories they want. The trouble with them isn't the ideas, it's the inability to accept the results of their experiments and other external data that prove their theories wrong.
And what's wrong with sci-fi? Everything we take for granted today was science fiction at some point. Granted, things like warp drives and light adaptive camouflage are a bit far fetched, but they're not designed to be accurate. They're plot devices and nothing more. Gene Roddenberry wasn't making a design for realistic FTL, he just needed a thing to get his cast from place to place in the galaxy to have adventures without taking 50 years to cross between systems. Predator gives zero explanation on how it turned invisible. It just could, cos it needed to be the perfect hunter, hunters wear camouflage and the perfect camouflage is being invisible.
And yeah, someone can come along later and add some things to how these devices
might work (i have a full explanation on how the sublight engines on the
Sulaco "worked" from the Aliens tech manual) but it being fiction based to start doesn't invalidate a theory on how it could be achieved until it is tested.
