ekZepp@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 21 days agoWhat Refutes Science...lemmy.worldimagemessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up11.26K
arrow-up11.26KimageWhat Refutes Science...lemmy.worldekZepp@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 21 days agomessage-square64fedilink
minus-squareMalReynolds@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·21 days agoCounterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
minus-squareFiskFisk33@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·21 days agoCounterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study. In other words, well, science.
minus-squareRemember_the_tooth@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·21 days agoBecause of the implication.
minus-squarepsud@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·21 days agoCounter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little See for example low carb nutrition
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Because of the implication.
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition