this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
26 points (96.4% liked)
Science
14642 readers
47 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On a tangent, I appreciate this bit in Daniel Whiteson's answer:
"I’m not a fan of categorizing things as 'science' or 'not science,' because who knows what nerdy curiosity will lead to a discovery?"
And also in Thomas Van Riet's answer:
"People say that without experiment we cannot call one theory better than another. That is plain wrong. There are many consistency checks, which are ridiculously hard to pass. Can you compute black hole entropy? String theorists were able to compute it in very idealized circumstances and reproduced Hawking’s famous formula for black hole entropy!"
You'll sometimes see flat earthers, creationists, etc. taking a textbook definition of the Scientific Method, claim that anything that doesn't do that is "not science", and therefore wrong. Except that's not at all how it works. The important part is gathering data to support your claims. That data could be experimental, but it could also be observational.