[ohduran]

The author managed to write an article on the problems of scientific method without even mentioning Paul Feyerabend's "anything goes". He didn't mention either the fantastic "Lost in Math" by Sabine Hossenfelder, in which this precise problem is fully addressed in a manner that uninformed people can grasp. No mention of Karl Popper and the philosophy behind why on Earth do we use data to begin with.

This article is, to say the least, incomplete.

[a-nikolaev]

The author confuses the value of elegance in scientific research and scientific correctness.

Many scientists like to drink coffee when doing their research, and it helps. But we don't judge their theories on the basis of whose coffee was the tastiest..

[vagrantJin]

> No mention of Karl Popper and the philosophy behind why on Earth do we use data to begin with.

My favourite author's favourite author.

[atemerev]

But Sabine is the direct antagonist here. The point of this article is exactly opposite of what Dr. Hossenfelder usually says. Which is a good thing; science benefits from the conflict of opposing points.

[ohduran]

Agreed! That's precisely why it's important that she (or someone supporting the "against" argument) is mentioned: it keeps us honest. Which is the whole point about the scientific method, by the way; "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

[atemerev]

I agree; she at least needed to be reviewed, as the principal source of the opposing point of view.