/lit/ - Literature

I was working this as a research question myself. One day, I'd like to publish my research somewhere amateur, but I'll give a quick and dirty glance.

My conclusion is that, what we call the scientific method, is an anachronism, and didn't exist until about 70 years ago, and began about 100 years ago with the introduction of probabilistic statistical modeling and the concept of a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was introduced in about the year 1925. For reference, this was after the General Theory of Relativity.
You can just do a basic web search yourself and see what I'm talking about. Now, yeah, a lot of various writers and thinkers from the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and the 'Scientific Revolution' were using the word science or something similar (natural philosophy). They were using similar ideas. Great scientists of the last century seemed to be using the same idea of what we call science. But the word and concept has fundamentally changed in meaning. When translated, Kant describes metaphysics as a kind of 'science.' Theology was once considered a form of 'science.' Chemistry would be a different kind of 'science' to describe an aspect of the natural world of phenomena.
In reality, what most people now think of as 'science' is synonymous with an academic-corporate-state complex. Why? Because a necessary condition of science is a null hypothesis and peer review. If doesn't exist in reference to academic experts and state policy, it's not science. Why? Because 'peer review' requires the scientific-industrial complex. To publish requires relevant credentials. Peer review, in its form now, did not exist for most of history, and for most of the great scientific innovations. It existed in some different form (Galileo sending personal letters is a form of peer review). Yet, peer review doesn't actually give what it's ideally meant to: experimental replication. Hence, the 'replication crisis.' People associate this with the social science (in other words, the non-sciences), but it's actually prevalent in the physical sciences.
Incidentally, as even Michio Okaku once admitted, innovative scientists today don't actually use the scientific method. Even so, much in physical sciences now use probability-based computer models over observation.
This is the real reason I think social sciences are such a fraud. They were mostly invented in the last 100 years, after the widespread introduction of the scientific-industrial complex, the null hypothesis, and contemporary probability approaches. This whole method works exactly like astrology. Go out and actually study how astrology is done, and how this shit is done. You can find that sometimes, it actually 'works.'
This gets into some separate questions of things like surveys and samples sizes. Still, the very methods themselves are fraudulent and epistemologically false.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8311963/Famed_Author_Thomas_Pynchon_Dead.html
Holy shit, this time it's real.