[kefka]

I was using google speaking keyboard. I was at a stoplight and spoke it and submitted.

I'm all for scientific method, be it showing positive, negative, or no results. I also know what isn't currently scientific, although I do have curiosity if some of those 'things' can indeed be proved.

[nxzero]

This is not how science works, that is just paying attention to results that back your hypothesis or biases; in fact, doing this is not science at all.

EDIT: An example of this in the wild is how drug companies would cherry pick research to back the outcome the wanted; cherry picking is an anti-pattern of true science.

[chris_wot]

Happens to the best of us. My editing issues is Apple's autocorrect, I get some truly strange results sometimes.

That makes sense - though I hope you don't mind me asking but when you say "I also know what isn't currently scientific", do you mean untested hypotheses?

[maaku]

Everything is "scientific" so long as it is subjected to unbiased skeptical experimental evaluation. That's all it means to be "scientific."

[bigfudge]

Science needn't mean experiments. Just ask astronomers.

[MacsHeadroom]

Hypothesizing then observing or reviewing past observations to verify the hypothesis is a form of experimentation. Every revelation of astronomy has been the result of experiments.