Researchers here. The scientific method is unbelievably tedious. Way more tedious than you would think. So much so that people are willing to pay researchers to do it for them. A simple yes or no question takes weeks or months to answer if you’re lucky.
But the upside is that we can remove our own biases from the answer as much as possible. If you see an obvious difference between any 2 groups, then there’s little to no point in doing the scientific method. But if the difference is less clear, like borderline visible, then biases start to creep in. Someone who thinks there’s no difference will see the data and think there’s no difference. And someone who thinks there’s a difference will look at the data and think there’s a difference. The scientific method excels in these cases, because it gives us a relatively objective way to determine if there is a difference or not between 2 groups
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Its strength is generating models of reality that have predictive power.
Its weaknesses are a lack of absolute certainty and the inability to model that which has no detectable impact on reality. Though I don’t know of any alternative system that can demonstrably do either.
onion@feddit.de 8 months ago
Also never touching any why-questions
Krudler@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think that’s because there is no answer to “why” - At least not one that would satisfy the human mind.
The best we are ever going to be getting is “it just is”.
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 8 months ago
“Why”, when distinguished from “how”, is asking about the intent of a thinking agent. Neuroscience, psychology, and sociology exist. Am I misunderstanding your point?