That's correct for experimental scientific disciplines. I'm just highlighting that "science" goes beyond experimental disciples. The fields that I mentioned earlier do not use experimentation to test hypotheses - they must employ other methods.Choppaduel said:What non-repeatable experiments have been used to validate hypotheses? I don't know any. I was under the impression that sometimes its acceptable not to rely on experiments because performing one is impossible(or close to it). But when you do create an experiment, you must be able to create another identical experiment which has exceedingly similar results, otherwise you can't make the claim that your theory is scientific. In short, I thought it was either none or many. also, that one is not actual evidence.mikespoff said:Yeah, I'm just pointing out that hypothesis testing does not necessarily involve repeatable experiments. In this specific case it's appropriate to look at replication as a useful benchmark, but as a broad statement it goes too far.Choppaduel said:that statement is true in the context of testing hypotheses, notmikespoff said:While I agree with your scepticism, your argument is questionable. By that logic, paleontology, astronomy and evolutionary biology are all classed as "non-science".Choppaduel said:If its not repeatable, its not science.inof the fields themselves.
Again, for the particular machine in the post, it absolutely falls into the field of experimental testing, and thus repeatability is very much required.