7 ms·

> Science isn't self correcting.... I am not sure what your proposal is? It seems to be the solution is only more science? This meme that science can't solve a

> Science isn't self correcting.... I am not sure what your proposal is? It seems to be the solution is only more science? This meme that science can't solve anything or is ineffective is also a meme that needs to die. Science is about the only thing that we have to make sense of the world. What else is there? > 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like there's a constitutional amendment that lays it out. Try and pin people down and you'll discover nobody agrees on what science actually requires. I am pretty sure the only necessary requirement is repeatability. As far as science is concerned, it does not matter if Jesus did in fact born from a virgin mother, it is not repeatable, and therefore not scientific. We could be entirely wrong about gravity, maybe Earth is indeed only 5 years old and God just created everything to appear the way it is.

esalman 16d ago
> it does not matter if Jesus did in fact born from a virgin mother, it is not repeatable, and therefore not scientific https://www.newscientist.com/article/1837276-the-boy-whose-blood-has-no-father/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/1837276-the-boy-whose-b...
- CrazyStat 16d ago
  Even better, from the BMJ christmas edition https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 > Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births.
  - esalman 15d ago
    Not necessarily. The article I linked reported that the white blood cell DNA of the child did not contain Y chromosome. That's different than conducting a survey.
  - dennis_jeeves2 16d ago
    In the true spirit of science this needs to be pursued however outlandish it may seem.
mike_hearn 16d ago
Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study. https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science-0e195234a280 https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science... My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct.
- anon-3988 15d ago
  > Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study. Replicability test also happens in the real world. If gravity is not actually 9.81 m/s^2 then we will eventually have to come to term to that. For all we know, we could be completely wrong about quantum mechanics and the reality of subatomic particles, but it doesn't matter because we can use the predicted behavior and it actually works. The question is to ask: what is one thing that I would never discard from a scientific principle. If you remove replicability, it does not matter if you have accurately captured a measurement of the universe once, it is completely pointless if you are not able to replicate it again.
- dennis_jeeves2 16d ago
  >My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct. A tangential proposal - individuals (not orgs) should offer to upfront fund ( in lump sum) promising researchers for life. That way a researcher is not worried about losing his livelihood. I suspect this may already be happening in a few circles without much fanfare.
  - rightnutwingjob 16d ago
    Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better? If that’s your criteria, then shouldn’t said funding go to an individual scientist who has no lab, no staff, no PhD candidates, and no access to the internet or existing research. Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

esalman 16d ago

> it does not matter if Jesus did in fact born from a virgin mother, it is not repeatable, and therefore not scientific https://www.newscientist.com/article/1837276-the-boy-whose-blood-has-no-father/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/1837276-the-boy-whose-b...

CrazyStat 16d ago
Even better, from the BMJ christmas edition https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 > Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births.
- esalman 15d ago
  Not necessarily. The article I linked reported that the white blood cell DNA of the child did not contain Y chromosome. That's different than conducting a survey.
- dennis_jeeves2 16d ago
  In the true spirit of science this needs to be pursued however outlandish it may seem.

mike_hearn 16d ago

Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study. https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science-0e195234a280 https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science... My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct.

anon-3988 15d ago
> Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study. Replicability test also happens in the real world. If gravity is not actually 9.81 m/s^2 then we will eventually have to come to term to that. For all we know, we could be completely wrong about quantum mechanics and the reality of subatomic particles, but it doesn't matter because we can use the predicted behavior and it actually works. The question is to ask: what is one thing that I would never discard from a scientific principle. If you remove replicability, it does not matter if you have accurately captured a measurement of the universe once, it is completely pointless if you are not able to replicate it again.
dennis_jeeves2 16d ago
>My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct. A tangential proposal - individuals (not orgs) should offer to upfront fund ( in lump sum) promising researchers for life. That way a researcher is not worried about losing his livelihood. I suspect this may already be happening in a few circles without much fanfare.
- rightnutwingjob 16d ago
  Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better? If that’s your criteria, then shouldn’t said funding go to an individual scientist who has no lab, no staff, no PhD candidates, and no access to the internet or existing research. Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.