In Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos argues that science does not progress through the simple falsification of individual hypotheses, as Karl Popper’s account might suggest, but through the competition and evolution of scientific research programmes. Each programme has a hard core of fundamental assumptions protected by a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, which scientists modify when observations conflict with predictions. A programme is progressive when modifications lead to novel, corroborated predictions, and degenerating when changes merely accommodate known anomalies without producing new successes. Therefore, a single counterexample does not automatically refute a theory: scientists should evaluate how a research programme develops over time and whether it advances knowledge relative to its rivals.

So, basically, we need to nuke more Datacenters 🤓 I hope you agree with me. Unless you have a conflict of interests..?