Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.
Comment on What Refutes Science...
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
97xBang@feddit.online 3 months ago
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
Sorry, I don’t understand.
97xBang@feddit.online 3 months ago
Yeah, I'm being silly.
Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.
FTFM
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
oo1@lemmings.world 3 months ago
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can’t even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else’s hypothesis without providing a new one doesn’t meet the bar of doing science.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 months ago
Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?
psud@aussie.zone 3 months ago
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 months ago
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Because of the implication.