"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
That and logical consistency. And a bit of expert consensus. I guess that covers it.
Take away any of the 3 and you get something quite different.
I’d say it’s equally important to figure out what to observe—to arrange experiments that reveal information you don’t yet know, instead of just confirming what you do.
From what would you draw that "what to look at"?
The scientific process derives consensus from not observing what is expected in a theory, rather from repeated failure to observe counter examples to what is expected. This is the whole point of "reject the null hypothesis".
Stated more plainly, a scientific theory is solidified when you put yourself in the shoes of your own fiercest critics, and attempt to question your own idea (in good faith) and fail to observe any evidence to substantiate that criticism. A scientific theory, is then put under that scrutiny for real, and gains consensus when others fail to observe any counter examples for themselves.
So to answer "what to look at", the answer is always, what would your competition look at to try to disprove you? Then look at that, to see if there is anything of substance to discredit your own idea, and save everyone the time and your embarrassment in case there are easy counter examples.
"and what's your evidence?"
"Well just look at it."
Observation is fantastic for removing bullshit from the conversation.
He's arguing that salt is sweet? Well just taste it then.
It could be explored. How does science NOT stick to the observation? Could we further optimize it?
It could be borrowed. Are some conversations just too bullshit? Maybe we could borrow science's trick.
What about situations that are different under observation than not? It doesn’t actually cover every single case. No single rule ever COULD.
I think we just ignore those situations.
