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.
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.
No