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.
Comment on What Refutes Science...
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 1 week agoIsn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 week ago
Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?
oo1@lemmings.world 1 week 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.