You're viewing a single thread.
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Because of the implication.
Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Yeah, I'm being silly.
Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.
FTFM
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can't even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else's hypothesis without providing a new one doesn't meet the bar of doing science.
Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition