If so then she has to present her hypothesis, model, constants and variables in her model, observations taken at intervals in the gym, and a graph with clearly labelled x and y-axes; eventually ending with a conclusion of whether this set of observations proved or disproved her hypothesis given the model.
Otherwise she’s just goofing around trying to get views.
If she’s doing human research, she’d have to get sign off from an institutional review board who’d require that her experiment doesn’t cause lasting harm or discomfort to the participants. You know, the opposite of what she’s doing when she’s trying to get views by causing a confrontation.
Scientists are bound by these weird things called ethics, which is why there’s never been a laboratory experiment showing that smoking causes cancer in humans.
By no means did I mean to defend or condone her actions, nor to say it was ethical or respectable. Sorta like how a child’s experiment to learn about volcanoes from a very basic and unpolished level.
That’s the thing about your original question, though: this isn’t an experiment in a social-sciences sense. It fails categorically in ethics, rigor, and investigative purpose: in all meaningful research senses.
She’s just fucking around with people to get views, and maybe she’s finding out.
Right, I think we’re in agreement. I apologize if my tone was harsh: It’s not because of your question but because her asshole approach to everyone else is selfish and infuriating.
The entire scientific community facepalms at this being described as an experiment.
“Experiment” in this case only means “how many views and thirsty comments can I get?”
Remember kids the difference between science and fucking around is writing it down.
And she ain’t writing anything down…
I mean…recording it is a form of record keeping…
Social sciences would recognize it as such, no?
If so then she has to present her hypothesis, model, constants and variables in her model, observations taken at intervals in the gym, and a graph with clearly labelled x and y-axes; eventually ending with a conclusion of whether this set of observations proved or disproved her hypothesis given the model.
Otherwise she’s just goofing around trying to get views.
If she’s doing human research, she’d have to get sign off from an institutional review board who’d require that her experiment doesn’t cause lasting harm or discomfort to the participants. You know, the opposite of what she’s doing when she’s trying to get views by causing a confrontation.
Scientists are bound by these weird things called ethics, which is why there’s never been a laboratory experiment showing that smoking causes cancer in humans.
By no means did I mean to defend or condone her actions, nor to say it was ethical or respectable. Sorta like how a child’s experiment to learn about volcanoes from a very basic and unpolished level.
All that’s to say, she’s a grade A moron.
That’s the thing about your original question, though: this isn’t an experiment in a social-sciences sense. It fails categorically in ethics, rigor, and investigative purpose: in all meaningful research senses.
She’s just fucking around with people to get views, and maybe she’s finding out.
That’s why I was asking, though; I didn’t know and needed to hear from someone who understood what the qualifiers were so that I could learn.
Right, I think we’re in agreement. I apologize if my tone was harsh: It’s not because of your question but because her asshole approach to everyone else is selfish and infuriating.
No