/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10459316
Show me any undergrad or grad level physics textbook with the "scientific method" in it.

>>10457694
>Does the evidence support the idea
>No
>Bad idea
Or it doesn't apply there, limit the domain :^)
Or it's an outlier, throw out the data points :^)
Or fudge it, you need to publish in a high impact journal to get more grant funding. You can retract it in a few months if you feel bad about it.

>Can the theory be modified to explain the new evidence
>No
>Revolution!
Or you just ignore it.
>Yes
>Improve theory
Congratulations, the theory is now strongly nonlinear, intractable, chaotic and numerically unstable. Worthless!

>Get an idea
>Perform Experiment
KEK, they just skipped over 99% of the work that is in between.

>>7986010

I'm assuming/hoping they're grouping that in with Honesty (to the results) but yeah, data fudging is a problem.

>>7578570
>scientific method

stop reading popsci