 As I was looking at the notes that I have for some rules that I wanna just, again, name have in our pile, in our toolkit, our science toolkit, I realized that there's one more limitation. I don't even know if it counts as a limitation, but it's something that I want us to be aware of and I want us to acknowledge. And it's that I'm gonna add it in another color. Science can be misused. That's an M-I-S-U-S-E-D. And I'm just gonna add my own feelings about that. When science is misused, that's not, we gathered all this evidence and we drew this conclusion and then someone else came in and said, well, here's another explanation for the evidence that you've gathered and you say, oh, I'm adjusting what I learned and I don't think that that's true anymore. Misusing science is malicious. It's done to manipulate. It's done to get an outcome that you want and it relates to the, oh, where did we have? There's a rule somewhere. Hmm, rule number three, let's just go ahead and throw that up here. I'm gonna go backwards, y'all, sorry about this. Your scientific explanations can't be based on opinion. Explanations or research or what you're doing with science are not based on opinion or personal values or personal beliefs. And it, right? It isn't that, that's not what this tool is for. Sometimes people do it anyway and there is a malicious under tone, which means or a malicious intent and that means that we have to keep our eyes open and we have to be critical. That's also one of the awesome things about the process of science and hanging out with scientists. They're a critical bunch. They look at things and they're looking for how is that not true and what questions can I ask that push on that because ask the questions by all means, if I have an idea of something I wanna test or something I wanna explore using the process of science and you push on me, it makes me think. It makes my ideas stronger. It gives me more insight into the process. It's actually really good to have critical input. Okay, all right. Since we already started going backwards, I might as well keep going backwards. Rule number two is that supernatural explanations cannot be used. Nobody knows what that symbol means, but it means no. You cannot use a supernatural explanation for something you're observing. You can, I encourage it, but it isn't scientific and it isn't part of the process of science. So when you're doing something you can't say, I think my plant grew because the tree fairies came in my window in the night and kissed all the flower leaves and that's why my plant grew in the night. That's a supernatural explanation. I can't even ask the question about fairies if they exist or they don't exist. I can't, that's definitely not a falsifiable hypothesis about how my plant got so robust. Supernatural observations or explanations don't work because the explanations must be falsifiable. And I love that. You can't ever prove to me that fairies didn't come through my window. You just can't prove it and that I like that because I like faith and magic and belief and that's okay. It just isn't science. We're cool with that. Okay, let's see what rule number one was. Oh, what do you think? Do you think this is important to me? This rule number one is again about the hypothesis. I'm gonna write it down again. Hypothesis must be falsifiable, testable and observable. Let's see if I got all. It must be possible to reject the hypothesis. So you have to be able to say this is not possible. Okay, do we need an example? In the next little section, we're gonna do some examples of, I just got distracted because I realized I didn't move my little thing to say that, oh, now we're talking about rules. I'm definitely not re-recording this for that. So the next one, we're gonna talk about some experimental design. Experiments are fun. They're fun to do, they're fun to design and we'll talk about some qualities of experimental design.