Is "science" ever based on singularity or only weird repetitions?

Question

If an event never repeats itself, then would could an independent, "scientific" observation be made?

Is "true" science only based on weird repetitions of observable events?

Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

The broad answer is no.

But!!

When you get to particle physics the costs are truly stupendous and therefore where a theory predicts a number of sub atomic particles from an experiment and each is captured five or six times but one only once then it is assumed to be the true particle but science will then work out new experiments to track it precisely.

The Large Hadron Collider is a 27-kilometre long circular particle accelerator built at the CERN experimental facility near Geneva.  It will smash protons into each other at unimaginable speeds trying to replicate in miniature the events of the Big Bang.

The fundamental goal of the massive machine is to answer the basic but crucial question of how matter was created at the birth of the universe.

If the theories are correct, the machine will create tiny Black Holes that evaporate and possibly even find particles that offer evidence that the three dimensions known to mankind are just a fraction of those that actually exist.

For the first time in many decades this machine exceeds the powers of science to predict what particles or even entirely new matter might be discovered!!

Answer 2

Science is based on finding evidence to support any given hypotheses. If an event never repeats itself, e.g. the big bang, you would have to look for circumstantial evidence to show that it occured.

Answer 3

No, and yes.  First, a singularity is strictly a mathematical concept.  Singularities fill my work.  In fact, I depend upon them.  Oversimplified, a singularity is a point that cannot be differentiated but where the surrounding neighborhood of points can be differentiated.  A common example given in school is the rule that you cannot divide by zero.  The real reason for this rule is to cover the singularity that would be created.  Division by zero actually does happen quite a bit in nature and it really mucks things up when it does.  My task in life is to work with these problems.

Now, I think you meant "one observation."  Science hates one observation.  Science considers "facts" the lowest form of knowledge.  The reason is that any observation can have measurement error.  Any one fact is very open to manipulation, error or misinterpretation.  Science prefers large numbers of naturally occurring observations, but that does not mean it will not settle for rare weird ones.  Consider two, neither of which could be replicated, the Great Depression for economics and the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa.  Neither could be replicated, nor would you want to.  They generated a lot of data, but both happened when no one was purposefully looking so the data leading up to it isn't that good.  What you can do, with these weird events, is model the impact from other events that were less extreme.

Most science is from lots of data that occurs in nature a lot, without the need for experiments.  True science is a set of tools, statistical and technical in nature, to make predictions based on the existing data set.

Answer 4

If an event is weird, meaning that it only happens once, it is considered anecdotal evidence....science cannot make tests on anecdotal evidence...

If I tell you a story that my uncle told me that my grandfather told him that some guy who lived in the apartment above him told him about the time he saw John Rockefeller sucking the blood from a wino, science in not going to be able to confirm that John Rockefeller was a vampire....mmm-kay?

If science encounters an anomoly - something that keeps happening that our paradigm in that field says should not happen, then scientists begin to see what is a "paradigm shift" in that field of study as the "why" of what is happening is better understood...

Einstein's theory of relativity was a paradigm shift that replaced much of Newton's theories...that doesn't render Newton useless, it simply means Einstien's theories are one rung higher on the ladder of knowledge than Newton's...

Answer 5

Science is not mere repetitions, it is what have been proven, now religion is based on weird repetitions of some ol' story book.

Answer 6

I´d say, the weirdness must have a reason, no?

There is a fine line, between reasonable weirdness, and total BS.

So, i guess, one have to set the standard

Answer 7

Science is based on evidence, not some ancient asinine book.