11 ms·
In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced. As in, if a postulated hypothesis does not contradict any obser
by lstodd 8y ago
In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced.
As in, if a postulated hypothesis does not contradict any observable facts, it stays a hypothesis, a possible foundation of a theory. If it does contradict the same, it becomes a false hypothesis and is discarded.
This is science, not law or anything else. It does not and can not rely on trust or perceptions of authority.
- claudiawerner 8y agoThere is a clear and distinct difference between how science should and must operate within science, and the epistemological standards by which we must operate day to day in judging the quality of science, as we are non-scientists. At some point, as even Bertrand Russel was aware, we must depend on two very unreliable mechanisms: memory and testimony. We cannot prove the physical laws of the universe every time we do science, and we cannot re-do every experiment of a paper before we cite it or accept it. One must trust in the framework of science. I'm well aware of how things work (or at least ought to work) in science, but that's totally irrelevant to the point I was making about skepticism of the sources that publish science and who they are funded by. It is especially irrelevant if we are talking about lay people judging research for their own purposes.
- thfuran 8y ago>In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced. So anyone who didn't reproduce the study should just leave off commenting?