That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.
Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer
-reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.
Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.
Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.
And what proof do you have that it was non vague? Did you do a double blind control with a horoscope made for you, and some random ones made for other people, and determine if you could accurately pick out which one was yours?
So no, your point is not valid because you did not have a control. Without controls to your “experiment” the results are entirely meaningless.
But it is. More science than you’ve ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.
That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.
Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer -reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.
Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.
And what science have you actually done?
When you say science do you mean science, or some other thing?
Whatever definition you want.
Except your control-less astrology report test, because that was certainly not science.
Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.
And what proof do you have that it was non vague? Did you do a double blind control with a horoscope made for you, and some random ones made for other people, and determine if you could accurately pick out which one was yours?
So no, your point is not valid because you did not have a control. Without controls to your “experiment” the results are entirely meaningless.