In Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos argues that science does not progress through the simple falsification of individual hypotheses, as Karl Popper’s account might suggest, but through the competition and evolution of scientific research programmes. Each programme has a hard core of fundamental assumptions protected by a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, which scientists modify when observations conflict with predictions. A programme is progressive when modifications lead to novel, corroborated predictions, and degenerating when changes merely accommodate known anomalies without producing new successes. Therefore, a single counterexample does not automatically refute a theory: scientists should evaluate how a research programme develops over time and whether it advances knowledge relative to its rivals.
So, basically, we need to nuke more Datacenters 🤓 I hope you agree with me. Unless you have a conflict of interests…?
You didn’t refute anything. You just laughed. I quoted from epistemology to say that it may be true the claim of some bot traffic was affected. You are a troll regardless of subscribing to any agenda… just by arguing in bad faith.
So, basically, we need to nuke more Datacenters 🤓 I hope you agree with me. Unless you have a conflict of interests…?
I love that you’re implying that I’m a Russian asset because I refuted your propaganda, lmfao.
You guys are getting ridiculous in your paranoia.
Can you say “fuck putin” or are you afraid of doing it??
Fuck Putin. Can you say fuck America? You know, the country responsible for unlimited death and destruction across the globe since its founding?
You didn’t refute anything. You just laughed. I quoted from epistemology to say that it may be true the claim of some bot traffic was affected. You are a troll regardless of subscribing to any agenda… just by arguing in bad faith.
Sure, it may be true, but all the evidence points towards it not being true so far.