Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.
That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.
Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer
-reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.
Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.
Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.
Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.
But it is. More science than you’ve ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.
That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.
Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer -reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.
Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.
And what science have you actually done?
When you say science do you mean science, or some other thing?
Whatever definition you want.
Except your control-less astrology report test, because that was certainly not science.
Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.