Counterpoint: the scientific method is much simpler than you described.
- Fuck around
- Find out
- Write it down
The rest are details of the above or elitism.
WhatIsH2O4
joined 1 year ago
The liberal who doesn't believe in the concept of critical support.
Alternate PhD
Spoken like a round leaf.
What a shit parable.
Fucking GOOD! Holy hell, still a terrible story to imagine.
It's often the same for science, though there are actual experts who occasionally weigh in too.
And the jolly rancher.
That's assuming they are competent enough to even use a PDF.
Exactly. Just like the "water isn't wet" argument, it all comes down to semantics such as how you define terms.
Define genocide how they want, they're still a bunch of ghoulish war criminals.
Read the manual and if something's broken, give fixing it a shot even if you end up breaking it more.
When you read the manual, you learn things (often including how to fix them without breaking them more). The more things you know how to fix, the more everything starts to look familiar. This is how those people who seem to be ridiculously good at fixing everything learned to be good.
view more: next ›
I agree with you last point, and I really, really want to with the first.
Sometimes science feels more like an art, for chemistry at least. I suppose the counter-point to this is: if you provide sufficient detail to reproduce but your results are still difficult to reproduce reliably by others, then your process wasn't very robust and should have undergone more development before publishing. Those details may be so minor that you don't even realize that you overlooked something.