Hacker News Reader

That's diverging from what was being discussed and creating a strawman that you are now debunking. The context is the use of method-less science that uses assumptions based upon indicators as working hypothesis - not that there are always base assumptions but that the refutation of testing while holding assumptions up as tested is something that is bad science.

View on HN

I thought what was being discussed was:

"The real sciense[sic] should contain ONLY the things which are proved with real proofs!"

As in mathematical proofs. You can't prove most things the way you can in mathematics, which is rock-solid through tautologies and self-consistent abstract models. When you are observing actual reality you have to make some assumptions.

What was being discussed was the reply in the context of my comment that had been replied to. I was not the original GP poster. Sorry, if I didn't make that clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com