• Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Good science will use previous norms, findings and general trends to provide a more useful starting point tho.

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Good science starts from the body of evidence we already know, creates a plausible hypothesis, and then tests that hypothesis to see whether it can be disproven.

      We don’t say “hey, maybe gravity isn’t real so to be unbiased I need to assume it’s not and test every other possibility before determining what keeps making these bricks fall on my head every time I throw them up in the air”

      No need to reinvent the wheel for every experiment.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Maybe not the greatest example since we don’t fully understand gravity. ”good" in the sense of being expedient, affordable and conventional. Sometimes approaching unsolved problems without the constraints of prior constructs can lead to better understanding.

        Also, vegetables usually are the culprits anyways.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Okay, but they can focus on experiments designed to determine whether gravity is caused by quantum mechanics or relativity or something else. They don’t need to drop bricks on their heads just to prove newtonian physics…