Because Malthus was an idiot with no understanding of intelligence, human potential, or technology.
both
both
true
True
It is important to acknowledge and learn from incorrect predictions by analyzing all observations, including those that don't support the prediction. Changing a prediction based on new information or adjusting the underlying assumptions is a valid practice to improve future predictions. Transparently documenting the rationale behind the change helps maintain credibility and ensures a more accurate predictive model.
true
It is not scientifically valid to selectively ignore information that contradicts a prediction or change a prediction based on preconceived beliefs. It is important to consider all evidence, even if it goes against the initial prediction, in order to draw valid conclusions and refine future predictions. This approach is fundamental to the scientific method and ensures the integrity of the research process.
The Malthusian principle was incorrect because it underestimated technological advancements and innovations that enable increased food production and resource availability, therefore proving his prediction of population growth outpacing resources wrong.
It was incorrect It is incorrect That is incorrect That was incorrect
Virtually every civilization that has existed has an end of world philosophy. Most scientists know that an end of our world (as we know it) is inevitable. So to assume end of world beliefs are a hoax may be incorrect.
No it's not. They say the world is gonna end all the time. 1994, 2000, 2002. This is just another random date that some guy has made up to get his name published There are people who believed the stories of the "Rapture" and those who did not. As the time has come and passed, it would appear the prediction was incorrect, however, no one know (until it is over) if a prediction is true or not.
Incorrect is not abbreviated.