3 ms·
Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. Good science then rules most of them out based
by TheRealPomax 11y ago
Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. Good science then rules most of them out based on evidence. And if we can't get that evidence because it's lost in history, then too bad: it'll have to stay unprovable hypotheses.
There is no such thing as "basically undeniable" in science; only "unproven" and "backed by so much evidence in specific context as to be considered proven in specific context". And even if it's the latter, it can still be completely wrong outside of that context.
- BookmarkSaver 11y agoThe extrapolation you are making here is that historical studies are essentially pointless. For most of history we have a few rock scratchings or a one sentence accounts of major figures doing something. The bar for almost everything accepted as "historical fact" is far below the "blatantly obvious" statement that I threw out there. >Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. If accepting the idea that a 90% population reduction was a pivotal factor in the balance of New/Old World power is simply an "unprovable hypothesis", then sociology might as well be ignored. Maybe instead of latching onto the fact that I used words that are unpleasantly unscientific and pretending that my statement is bunk, you should actually examine the claim that I was making out to be "blatantly obvious". Because it is. Semantics will not change that. Getting high and mighty about what is "good science" or not regarding this claim is just nonsense objections made because you didn't like my wording.