| HN Mirror

> > not a single scrap of hard evidence [[ EDIT: this was to the commenter ]] > > The point of the piece was

You seem to have attempted to respond to my criticism of a HN comment by speaking for the author of a website piece who didn't write the HN comment I was talking about

> Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.

Not really, no. Most science proceeds without a hypothesis. Also, believing this makes me wonder why you're speaking up.

Standing my ground: people who don't have a formal degree in science shouldn't sit on the web announcing what science is for, because they genuinely do not know, themselves.

There is an actual "science exists to," and people who are scientists know what it is.

I understand that you're going to tell me I'm wrong if I don't teach you the scientist secret handshake, and that anything you say is truthful unless another internet person invests significant effort in taking you apart, or that I must provide reference regarding your claims. I'm okay with that.

I believe that my point stands.

The post makes a wildly long list of testable claims, and doesn't test them. A five minute look through the literature shows that almost every claim they made has been tested and come back "no, of course not."

If you find yourself attempting to speak for science as if it's a person, please consider not doing that, unless a college or university has degreed you in a science field.

Anyone who can discuss the type 1a/1b/2b split without the help of the internet can also tell you why science does not, in fact, exist to find the flaws in a hypothesis. None of those are hypotheses. Ample similar situations are hanging from the tree in literally every branch of science. That one's just common enough that I expect a typical internet user to know what I mean.

Thanks for understanding.

Dear journal: today, I saw someone attempt to correct me on that science is little interested in evidence. Also, I had some lovely tacos in the mission.