3 ms·
> Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available. Within the first few weeks we received updates that it was h
by garmaine 6y ago
> Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available. Within the first few weeks we received updates that it was highly unlikely to be transmitted through surface contact. That information became more and more detailed as time went on.
How do you think the science is done? The first step is to debate these things, to figure out possibilities and design experiments.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jjk166 6y agoNo, scientists don't debate what is true and come up with experiments after, they hypothesize and then test their hypotheses. As results come in, alternative hypotheses are proposed and likewise tested. There might be some debate as to how some data ought to be interpreted, but the data must come first.
- garmaine 6y agoAnd how do you think we come up with hypotheses?
- jjk166 6y agoCuriosity. A hypothesis is just a testable prediction - it only makes sense to have a hypothesis where you don't know the answer ahead of time. Debate is trying to convince someone else of a truth, which requires someone to know the truth (or at least believe they know the truth) beforehand.
- garmaine 6y agoYour definition of debate is overly restrictive. I can assure you that scientists debate unsettled and speculative things all the time, and precisely one of the things being debated is “what should we test for?”
- jjk166 6y agoYour definition of debate isn't the one that is relevant to this conversation. We're not referring to speculative thought, we're referring to decision making for public policy. Scientists discuss, evaluate, question, and probe, not debate. True, the people who are scientists might debate from time to time, but that's not a part of the scientific process.