Comment on What Refutes Science...

• MalReynolds@slrpnk.net ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Sorry, I don’t understand.

  source

  • 97xBang@feddit.online ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, I'm being silly.

    Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.

    FTFM

    source
  • ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science

    source

    • oo1@lemmings.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.

      source
    • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.

      source
    • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?

      source