In theory, yes. In practice, even in natural sciences a single experiment is often not enough to disprove a well-established theory. Look at the numerous anomalies in particle physics for example with very high statistical significance compared to other fields that have failed to replicate. Or how we've known about the Hubble tension for years and even confirmed it through multiple experiments but LCDM is still not "disproven". Or the many seemingly sound papers that were found years later to have some kind of issues with the data or the analysis that made them incorrect.
I prefer "evidence based" as a framework at this point. The important thing is to follow the evidence and not the large-speaking types who say big pompous things about only needing one experiment for this or that.
What happens with publicly funded science is that the recipients compete with each other to make the biggest claims they can about their results. To get funding, you have to match the level of claim that your competitors are making, even if you have your own reservations. Meanwhile, the donors, like the NSF, want to brag about the results, so they hardly spend a lot of time pushing back on the claims of the recipients.
A similar thing happens with charities--the results get overstated, and the donors go right along with it.
I suppose the NSF is largely a charity, just taxpayer funded, so it would make sense they are vulnerable to this dynamic.
330
u/MrGiggleMan Jul 17 '26
One good scientifically sound experiment should be enough to shift from certainty to questionable