promiscous

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by promiscous 3y ago

   That's not all the response demonstrates. More important is that it demonstrates that the journal is not representative of typical social scientific journals. This context is important because online commenters at times derive from the
2. 2.▲
   by promiscous 3y ago

   You can observe without experimentation. This is how we initially found evidence for cigarette smoking causing cancer. And then there's stuff like math, philosophy (including logic), and afaik. major parts of astronomy, which are not e
3. 3.▲
   by promiscous 3y ago

   Its worth reading the editorial response[1] to the hoax. There's some context that tends to be ignored when this hoax is discussed online. For example, that the journal is non-refereed; that they deliberately publish non-scientific art
4. 4.▲
   by promiscous 3y ago

   The empirical sciences tend not to be in the business of proving. Rather, they participate in the corroboration and falsification of hypotheses by means of observation. This is common to both the social and the natural sciences. Of course,