You do define success of an experiment by forming a hypothesis, yes.
What we’re observing here is starting with a conclusion or desired outcome, willfully ignoring everything but the pieces that support it, then telling everyone that something is true because of that. Meanwhile, the validity or statistical significance of those cherry-picked supporting pieces is also ignored.
Accepting a failed hypothesis in light of disproving evidence is what science is. It has no stakes in anything else but verifiable truth, even if it hurts, is politically inconvenient, or downright ugly.
Cant tell if sarcasm or you deal with bad science. You dont define success before the study/evidence is gathered?
You do define success of an experiment by forming a hypothesis, yes.
What we’re observing here is starting with a conclusion or desired outcome, willfully ignoring everything but the pieces that support it, then telling everyone that something is true because of that. Meanwhile, the validity or statistical significance of those cherry-picked supporting pieces is also ignored.
Accepting a failed hypothesis in light of disproving evidence is what science is. It has no stakes in anything else but verifiable truth, even if it hurts, is politically inconvenient, or downright ugly.