We've all been taught that science simply follows the empirical evidence to the best conclusion no matter what that conclusion might be. We've also been told the repeatability and testability and falsibility are the keys to obtaining this empirical data.
Does this sound like science to you?
"Even if there were no actual evidence for X, we would still be justified in preferring it over all other rival theories."
"Even if all the data point to X, such a hypothesis is excluded from science"
Does that sound like science?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Could you elaborate a bit?
Not yet. I’m simply pointing out what should be obvious. That endeavor which would intentionally ignore evidence on the one hand, while pronouncing something true with no evidence doesn’t sound much like the science we were taught about in school.
Post a Comment