Why not both?
What's decided to be worthy of study is subjective. The process to hypothesize, experiment, and conclude what's being studied is objective.
Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.
One cannot really argue that science as practiced is very effective at certain things but it is also extremely far from being objective in practice. Especially the further you stray from simple physical systems.
Also like I never saw someone formulate a hypothesis in any sort of formal sense haha.
Does anybody understand what this meme is trying to say? I feel like its pretty obvious
Neil DeGrass Tyson rails femboy doomers from behind while debating science or something idk.
This is why the last step of science is broad consensus, which has solved literally every single example of bad science in this entire thread. All this means is people should pay more attention to sources.
haha fUnNy mEme - gUeSs We cAn JuSt aBaNdOn SCiEnCe!
Cuz that's what this meme is trying to abandon - science
Let's also not forget that Scientists are also humans. Humans with their own beliefs and biases which do get transferred into studies. Peer review can help reduce that but since peers are also humans with their own biases, but also common biases shared amongst humans it's not bulletproof either.
There will always be some level of bias which clouds judgement, or makes you see/think things that aren't objectively true, sometimes it comes with good intention, others not so much. It's always there though, and probably always will be. The key to good science is making it as minimal as possible.
Even if you follow the rules strictly, confirmation bias can kick in... which is basically "always" because you have to start somewhere and will think a certain way.
Based on that argument, why bother? /s
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
