Ad Hoc Science

The practice of doing science in an ad hoc manner—developing hypotheses for specific cases, testing solutions in particular contexts, building theories that explain local phenomena without claiming universality. Ad hoc science is what happens when you can't wait for general theories, when you need answers now, when the situation demands action before understanding. It's the science of emergency rooms, of startup pivots, of parenting—contexts where general principles help but specific solutions are needed. Ad hoc science is not inferior; it's just different. It's science for the real world, where most problems are local and most solutions are temporary.

Example: "She practiced ad hoc science in her garden, trying different combinations of plants, soil, water, and sun until something worked. She didn't develop general principles; she just found what worked here, in this plot, this year. Next year, she'd start over. Ad hoc science wasn't publishable, but it grew vegetables."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Sweeping Science

The practice of drawing broad, universal conclusions from limited, specific evidence—generalizing wildly from a few studies, a single experiment, or personal observation. Sweeping science is what happens when a preliminary finding is treated as settled fact, when a correlation is treated as causation, when a local result is applied globally. It's the science of headlines ("Coffee Causes Cancer," then "Coffee Prevents Cancer") rather than careful research. Sweeping science is beloved of journalists who need clickable stories, advocates who need supporting evidence, and anyone who prefers certainty to accuracy. The cure is recognizing that science is incremental, that single studies prove nothing, that generalizations require replication, meta-analysis, and time.

Example: "A study of 50 people found that a new diet improved health. Sweeping science declared it 'the miracle diet'—blogs, headlines, books. Ten years later, the results couldn't be replicated. Sweeping science had moved on to the next miracle, leaving confusion and failed expectations behind."

by Dumu The Void February 18, 2026

Hasty Science

The practice of rushing to conclusions before evidence is adequate—publishing results before replication, announcing breakthroughs before verification, claiming certainty before understanding. Hasty science is what happens when pressure to publish, compete, or impress overrides scientific caution. It's the science of conference announcements, press releases, and Twitter threads—claims made before they're ready, promises that can't be kept. Hasty science is beloved of institutions seeking funding, researchers seeking fame, and journalists seeking stories. The cure is recognizing that science is slow for a reason, that replication takes time, that certainty is earned, not declared.

Example: "The lab announced a breakthrough in room-temperature superconductors—headlines worldwide, stock market frenzy, Nobel whispers. Then the results couldn't be replicated. Hasty science had struck again: the rush to announce had outpaced the science itself. The researchers retreated, the headlines faded, and the field moved on, slower and wiser."

by Dumu The Void February 18, 2026

Law of Dynamics and Complexities of Science

A proposed solution to the problems of falsifiability and demarcation in philosophy of science: for something to be scientific, it must be dynamic (changing over time, responsive to evidence) and/or complex (involving interacting variables, emergent properties, systemic behavior). This law distinguishes science from static dogma (which doesn't change) and from simplistic claims (which ignore complexity). A dynamic science evolves with evidence; a complex science acknowledges that simple answers are rarely adequate. The Law of Dynamics and Complexities doesn't replace falsifiability but supplements it, recognizing that some scientific truths are not simple propositions but evolving understandings of complex systems.

Law of Dynamics and Complexities of Science Example: "He argued that economics wasn't a science because it couldn't make precise predictions. She invoked the Law of Dynamics and Complexities: economics studies dynamic, complex systems—human behavior, social institutions, global interactions. Its scientific status comes not from prediction but from its dynamic responsiveness to evidence and its acknowledgment of complexity. It's different from physics, but still science—just science of a different kind."

by Dumu The Void February 19, 2026

Law of Spectrality of Science

A proposed solution to the problems of falsifiability and demarcation: for something to be scientific, it must be capable of being organized along a spectrum—from hard sciences (physics, chemistry) through soft sciences (psychology, sociology) to protosciences (emerging fields) and borderline cases. The Law of Spectrality recognizes that "science" is not a binary category but a continuous dimension, with different fields occupying different positions based on their methods, maturity, and objects of study. This law resolves demarcation disputes by acknowledging that the boundary between science and non-science is fuzzy, and that the question isn't "is it science?" but "where on the scientific spectrum does it fall?"

Example: "The debate about whether psychology was 'really' a science had raged for decades. The Law of Spectrality of Science offered a way out: psychology is on the scientific spectrum—closer to biology than to philosophy, but not as 'hard' as physics. The question wasn't binary; it was spectral. Different fields, different positions, all valid in their place. The debate didn't end, but it became more honest."

by Dumu The Void February 19, 2026