/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11147815
>scientific calculator required

>>10232264
>shitty off-the-shelf laser pointer
I wouldn't worry, then.

Not exactly. In the best of cases your prof is making a gross oversimplification of a more complicated line of argument - the fact that scientists do in fact have a kind of "tradition" in their investigation, that it takes a breaking discovery to cause a paradigm shift and that more often than not this discovery is -not- made by following some "scientific method" but precisely by breaking the rules within the field (think Einstein when he discovered relativity). Worst case he's just blurting out BS as some anons have already pointed out.

There's a whole field of philosophy dedicated to breaking notions about the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge, which might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science Try to read into the induction/deduction debate that happened in the 19th century, and then some classical works of the field such as Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Paul Feyerabend's "Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge". Then read critics of said works.