• xthexder
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I’d argue the scientific method does not have to include multiple people at all. All it is, is the process of coming up with a hypothesis, designing an experiment to check that hypothesis, and then repeating while trying to control for external factors (like your own personal bias). You can absolutely do science on your own.

    The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science. You can come up with better hypotheses by reviewing other people’s science, but that doesn’t mean when a flat earther ignores all current consensus and does their own tests that it isn’t still science.

    • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.

      You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without “governance”.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      I’d counter argue that a test that is not communicated, reported, described or otherwise transmitted to another party is identical to it not happening, therefore one needs to tell “someone” (even if that is a private journal), and while in theory falsifability is possible solo, it increases the problem of induction, and science is, in essence, a language: a description of phenomena not the phenomena itself.