Interesting,
What constitutes an experiment?
I ask this,
As I wonder on how to prove theories one has about history, or other people's thoughts.
(I believe the Moon landing was real)
I suppose one could test fly a rocket to the Moon, to prove it is possible,
Could point out historical documentation, various reasons of 'why it would not be faked,
But that it is 'possible to fly to the Moon, does not mean it was 'done in history,
That there are documents and reasons, does not mean it was 'done.
People's thoughts,
Though one can go through their mental library of what they know of a persons past actions, human psychology,
'Still, a person's thoughts are only theorized.
Though perhaps this is unfair of me, Hm, David Hume and Causation,
Though, I believe in science and testing theories, 'generally speaking.
"1. Analysing stars
In his 1842 book The Positive Philosophy, the French philosopher Auguste Comte wrote of the stars: “We can never learn their internal constitution, nor, in regard to some of them, how heat is absorbed by their atmosphere.” In a similar vein, he said of the planets: “We can never know anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface.”
Comte’s argument was that the stars and planets are so far away as to be beyond the limits of everything but our sense of sight and geometry. He reasoned that, while we could work out their distance, their motion and their mass, nothing more could realistically be discerned. There was certainly no way to chemically analyse them.
Ironically, the discovery that would prove Comte wrong had already been made. In the early 19th century, William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph von Fraunhofer independently discovered that the spectrum of the Sun contained a great many dark lines.
Once we think something 'can't be tested,
Easy for a blind spot to appear, not that it did in this case, but my point is if people stop questioning, stop challenging, stop debating, stop testing, stop looking,
How would they find what 'could be tested?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Though I expect nothing after death,
I suppose death might be a final experience of sorts.
“To die will be an awfully big adventure.”
― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Still, expecting nothing, I hope that doesn't come for some time,
Though I wonder what people might theorize, should they find themselves in some new existence after death.
. . .Hm, rambling.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But, there 'are actions in which we might not have 'time to experiment,
Say jumping off a waterfall into the waters below,
And which failure might mean death.
Debate would be worthwhile, if a person is able to bring up certain connected notions, such as water tension, water depth, rocks, how the waterfall might push you down if you go under the water falling.
Debate proves useful in maximizing the chances to live, though 'what the water is like below is not 'known, not testable yet.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If some other losing country had first invented the Nuclear Bomb,
And thought there was a chance it might destroy life on Earth.
Had not time to 'experiment,
Debate might be had on the worthwhileness of the risk of using it,
Various weighings of morality and values.
"We now know enough about fusion to know that nuclear bombs cannot ignite the atmosphere. But in his book The Precipice, existential risk researcher Toby Ord argues that the team at the time could not possibly have been wholly confident in their conclusions."
