4 ms·
Yes, agreed. We now have a prediction. We will collect more data to see if that prediction holds. If it does, we'll work on theories to explain it. (Of course,
by scott_s 7y ago
Yes, agreed. We now have a prediction. We will collect more data to see if that prediction holds. If it does, we'll work on theories to explain it. (Of course, these two processes will actually happen in tandem, as how things work in practice is much messier.) They are not looking at the data set and saying "This anomaly will certainly hold when we get more data, it is now established fact." They are looking at the data set and saying "This looks funny, we should keep an eye on it." That is good science.
- jerf 7y agoI actually find it hard to imagine the model of science that some people seem to have is supposed to work, where, apparently, you are supposed to never look at the real data already collected out in the world and somehow just come up with hypotheses to be tested from... uhh... err... nothing, apparently, because looking at pre-existing data is somehow cheating, and, what else is there? The "standard model" of science that seems to be embedded in the heads of the Greater Internet Commetariat is pretty ludicrously nonsensical in a number of places.