Scientific Method Debate
This cluster centers on debates about the definition, application, and limitations of the scientific method, including what qualifies as true science versus pseudoscience or non-scientific approaches.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
It literally is science in any possible definition you can come up for the word. Your anecdotes don't really matter.
That's not how science or scientific method work
Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to. This has been a very long thread. But maybe this;https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient...will answer your question. See myth #3.
It seems like you're trying to apply science outside of its domain. Science is a tool to examine only phenomena that can be repeated and quantified.
this is overly constraining the meaning of science to the process of deduction. science includes observation and exploration.
You're making a common mistake, that of equating "scientific" with "good". Science is a particular method for learning about the world, not a marker of moral worth. I don't want to get too far into the epistemological weeds here, but there are plenty of other, perfectly valid ways to understand the world, many of which are used and studied in academia. The easiest examples to point to are philosophy and mathematics. Mathematicians are not scientists, neither are phi
The scientific approach isn't always the best... or even a valid approach.
Sorry, what’s less focused, scientific method or “actual science”?
Science is a (flawed) process, not a source of truth. Glass houses and all.
Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the epistemology of science. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27185221