In a way, yes, but the key point of the scientific method is testing and validating hypotheses to confirm existing models or theories.
Everything can be questioned in a sensible way, but if you’re going against the grain of established mountains of evidence, then you have to work just as hard to provide counter evidence or proofs.
The burden on proof for fantastical claims is on the person or persons making it.
But the point of the scientific method is to get us high-quality ideas. How would that cure the derangement of an idea-centered perspective?.
Maybe if you removed the model-making part. Leave the primacy of observation and the utility of peer-review. Maybe.
In a way, yes, but the key point of the scientific method is testing and validating hypotheses to confirm existing models or theories.
Everything can be questioned in a sensible way, but if you’re going against the grain of established mountains of evidence, then you have to work just as hard to provide counter evidence or proofs.
The burden on proof for fantastical claims is on the person or persons making it.
Yes. Hypotheses. Ideas.