That’s the ideal the commentor is talking about, this isn’t reality. A significant number of peer reviewed papers are being published without replicable results or any hint of a falsifiable hypothesis.
And how do you know this? Is it because someone said “this is true” and then someone else was then able to say “no it isn’t - and here’s the evidence”.
Well, that’s kinda my point, a lot of modern theoretical physics doesn’t present a falsifiable hypothesis - it can’t be tested, there’s no proposal for how it could ever be tested.
In terms of evidence the unrepeatable results - some of it is being repeated and checked, a lot of it isnt. Predictions of how bad the problem is is derived statistically. So much so it’s considered a crisis in modern science.
Except it doesn’t. Science is all about asking questions, religion is about accepting answers.
That’s the ideal the commentor is talking about, this isn’t reality. A significant number of peer reviewed papers are being published without replicable results or any hint of a falsifiable hypothesis.
No one is arguing that every scientist is ethical.
The issue is at its core one is about questioning and one isn’t. That fundamental doesn’t change.
And how do you know this? Is it because someone said “this is true” and then someone else was then able to say “no it isn’t - and here’s the evidence”.
Well, that’s kinda my point, a lot of modern theoretical physics doesn’t present a falsifiable hypothesis - it can’t be tested, there’s no proposal for how it could ever be tested.
In terms of evidence the unrepeatable results - some of it is being repeated and checked, a lot of it isnt. Predictions of how bad the problem is is derived statistically. So much so it’s considered a crisis in modern science.