3 ms·
> Only in such soft sciences you can "prove" any number of competing hypothesis, and have fractions arguing about them for decades or centuries. It took millen
by emodendroket 5y ago
> Only in such soft sciences you can "prove" any number of competing hypothesis, and have fractions arguing about them for decades or centuries.
It took millennia for spontaneous generation to be definitively disproven.
- coldtea 5y agoThat's exactly my point, as that was before we settled on the scientific method. So this might have been relatedto biology (or in other domains physics, chemistry, and so on), but the matter was debated in the soft sciences way, not in the way we do biology in the 20th century.
- emodendroket 5y agoIt was actually a few hundred years after the modern scientific method because scientists attempting to apply the method failed to spot confounding factors and interpreted their results incorrectly, something I think is hardly impossible even today in even the hardest of supposed hard sciences.