284
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
284 points (84.8% liked)
science
14682 readers
223 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is no objectively falsifiable hypothesis, or imperially reproducible result.
Don’t bring science into politics, that’s what religions and governments have tried to do for years as part of propaganda / anti-science campaigns. It never goes well even if you think it’s morally correct, because scientific reality does not always align with, nor does it care about current morality. Nevertheless science is objectively true.
There are falsifiable hypotheses in this study.
Here's the study. Go get access to the full text and read it https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2808129
Emotions (like regret) are not falsifiable, because they are not scientific phenomena. Similarly, you cannot have a scientific study on whether art is good, or if god is real, because they are by definition unscientific phenomena. That is why unscientific studies like this post, should not be allowed in a forum on science.
But perhaps the more important point here, is that conflating unscientific matters with actual science, has been at the heart of the anti-science movement, since science was discovered. It makes it much easier to discredit all of science as a whole, when you start claiming that social studies is science.
You truly have no idea what you're talking about with regards to science, hypotheses, and how they work.
I’m curious what you think the scientific method is
You should look it up for yourself if you don't think subjective experiences can be defined and measured in an objective and falsifiable way.
You could, for example, conduct a falsifiable experiment related to people's perception of color or heat or their night vision.
Subjective, by definition, cannot be objective. It sounds like you’re talking about social studies.
The existence and wellbeing of trans people is not politics.
It sure as hell isn’t science.
And that's why every study that goes against the existence of trans people and efficacy of gender affirming care is bunk bullshit and every actual good study confirms it.
You are free to spend the rest of your life malding about the TIMs or the AGPs or troons or whatever your specific flavour of idiot decides to call trans people, just stop pretending any real science agrees with you.
Obviously you really want this to be about trans people, but it’s not, it’s about science.
Science doesn’t agree with me because I have no opinion on the issue.
I do however, believe in the importance of the scientific method.
lol.
lmao.