Just now found out that ecology is not a science, because...¶

Just now found out that ecology is not a science, because ecosystems can't tested in the lab. Listening. Learning. 🙏 https://t.co/mLd0OtXOEf Science is not about performing experiments in a lab. The core of science is a very simple, intuitive cycle: using observations to form testable hypotheses, and using those hypotheses to guide further observations. Experimentation is one way of getting those observations: it's good for conditional observation, i.e. creating very specific conditions to constrain the expected observations to a range of possibilities, with the ability to modify those conditions and observe what changes. But there are other observational methods at our disposal. Analytical observation relies on taking existing data and using new analytical methods to construct new theoretical models. One example of this is meta-analyses, which present a fuller picture than individual studies. And of course, we have in situ observation, which takes place at the site of the naturally occurring phenomenon. This is done in cases where lab conditions can't accurately reflect natural ones, where collecting samples would be impossible, or where testing would be unethical. Social science, astrophysics, ecology, archaeology, and more all rely heavily on this latter type of observation. You can still use these observations to form testable hypotheses: it's just that the test comes in the form of more in situ observation, and more granular data. Marxism relies on empirical assessment to build testable hypotheses. One example is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, a theory which has been borne out in the real world. Another is the tendency of oppressed peoples to create revolution to alter their class position.