I’m confused. Person is writing a paper and looking for supporting evidence based on what they have observed. They are not running a study.
Science starts with what you have observed and you make a guess based on that information, and then you try to find out if you’re right.
For example, I see a big yellow orb in the sky a lot of the time. Why? Does the earth rotate about a big yellow orb? Does a big yellow orb rotate about the earth?
Being wrong about your guess does not negate that which you have observed. You might learn why you observe what you have observed but it does not take away from the fact that yes you have indeed observed something. This person has made observations and is trying to justify that using existing research. Again, they are not running a study. You don’t know if existing literature points to the persons hypothesis being wrong. You don’t know if it’s something that hasn’t really been studied so there isn’t that much evidence right now and person is trying to get someone to look into an issue.
This GREATLY depends on how one frames their own experiences, which we also do not get much information on from OP’s post. If someone is merely seeking validation for their conclusions which they claim their experience points at conclusively, then they are FAR from the scientific method.
In fact, I’d argue the wording does point to such logistic fallacies. They cite their own experiences, not something more removed from subjecrive experience.
seralth@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
They also very well could be writing about something incredibly niche based on those firsthand experiences.
Niche things tend to lack easily accessable information.
So hunting your ass off can be most of the working lol