Comment on What Refutes Science...

• 97xBang@feddit.online ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

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

  source

  • oo1@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

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

    source