BruisedOrange
Well... known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,796
- Likes
- 10,471
That is the scientific method. Data either affirms or contradicts your hypothesis. You either reconstruct a new hypothesis or the data aligns with it, and you draw a conclusion. Then you can write an opinion piece based on those findings.
I wonder if science can still be science in a post-modern societal mindset. I just came across this:
"More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers..."
and this:
“Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested (the race of civilians fatally shot by police), given continued misuse of the article (e.g., MacDonald, 2020) we felt the right decision was to retract the article...”
Anyone who has peeked far enough behind the consensus curtain of anthropomorphic global warming research has found plenty of disturbing examples of research corrupted or edited to an end. And to be fair, how do I know my "peek" wasn't directed also?