Maybe for applied science you can make this case - but overall, knowledge production _is_ the outcome of science. I think the discussions in the maths now around what LLMs can do are very enlightening. I also like this paper:
arxiv.org/pdf/2602.10181
!["%?%" <- function(test, yes) {
stop(
"%?% should only be called as part of the a sequence:\n",
" test %?% yes %:% no",
call. = FALSE
)
}
"%:%" <- function(testyes, no) {
cl2 <- match.call()
cl1 <- cl2$testyes
if (
!(length(cl2) == 3L &&
length(cl1) == 3L &&
cl2[[1]] == "%:%" &&
cl1[[1]] == "%?%")
) {
stop(
"%:% should only be called as part of the a sequence:\n",
" test %?% yes %:% no",
call. = FALSE
)
}
cl1[[1]] <- quote(vctrs::vec_if_else)
cl1[[4]] <- cl2$no
eval.parent(cl1)
}](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kwjddjickma3syepdsfufyvi/bafkreibxqlxsp3vl4kro6ezm74vftughupnvjmnbywdw22jovzfgdrcz74)
![To begin, distributions are never normal. For some this seems obvious, hardly worth mentioning, but an aphorism given by Cram´er (1946) and attributed to the mathematician Poincar´e remains relevant: “Everyone believes in the [normal] law of errors, the experimenters because they think it is a mathematical theorem, the mathematicians because they think it is an experimental fact.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kwjddjickma3syepdsfufyvi/bafkreifw25h2nnb3ylgdumcsctlyh6wdbxam7ajlnbwnca7hdxef5q6bo4)
