Andrew Kniss
@wyoweeds.bsky.social
4.6K followers 1.3K following 560 posts
I kill things for science (mostly plants). I study crops, weeds, and sometimes other things at a University in Wyoming (but this is a personal account). I like taking photos and writing #Rstats code, but not at the same time. PlantOutOfPlace.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Nearly 20 or so years ago, my friend Gustavo and I learned what manure tea is. I'd like to tell you all a story about that experience. #Agriculture #Science #Friendship
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Tonight I learned that I follow more baseball people than football people.
Reposted by Andrew Kniss
thedailyshow.com
The following is REAL footage from Portland, 2025. Viewer discretion is advised.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
this might be the most typo-ridden thread I've ever written
wyoweeds.bsky.social
SO: We don't do studies to make proof.

If your goal is to generate data in support of something, you'll probably succeed. But if your goal is to actually learn the truth, then you should be doing studies to disprove or invalidate your best hypotheses.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
And if you fail to disprove your idea? Well, that's often the strongest evidence that the idea is correct! The best hypotheses and theories are the ones that remain intact after many attempts to disprove them.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
The best way to have a hypothesis or theory stand the test of time, is to do our best to prove it wrong. Find the biggest weakness or alternate explanation and rigorously test those things. If you disprove your idea, then you've learned something extremely important!
wyoweeds.bsky.social
So what *should* we do if we want to really learn if our idea is correct?

We should try to *disprove* our idea.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
If I'm motivated to support an idea, I can think of LOTS of ways to generate data to support the idea. But this is a problem. Generating data to find 'proof' of something doesn't lead us towards finding the truth; it just further entrenches us in believing that idea (even if it's wrong).
wyoweeds.bsky.social
And also, if our goal is to prove something, there's LOTS of ways to generate data that support our idea. Like just look at the internet — you can find data to support ANYTHING. A dozen years ago, there was some 'science' that sequenced bogfoot's DNA.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Designing a good study to test our ideas can often be counter-intuitive. If, for example, we want to know if X causes Y, then we typically don't to set up a study to try to "prove" that X causes Y. In part, becuase causal studies are challenging, and there can be a lot of confounding factors.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
We want to know if our ideas are correct or not. So we do research! Designing studies to test our ideas is one of the most difficult but rewarding parts of the job, in my opinion.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Scientists have ideas about how things work. Sometimes our ideas are wrong, and sometimes our ideas are correct. And most often, we're probably in the middle somewhere. Not completely wrong, but we not fully understand the whole process/system/whatever.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
My quoted tweet below was mocking RFK Jr. because he should know better as head of HHS and someone who claims to 'follow the science.' But also - I think this is a common misconception so I'm going to address it earnestly.

Why do we conduct research, if not to 'make proof?'
wyoweeds.bsky.social
I, a scientist, definitely do studies to make proof.
atrupar.com
RFK Jr on Tylenol and autism: "It is not proof. We're doing the studies to make the proof."
wyoweeds.bsky.social
I, a scientist, definitely do studies to make proof.
atrupar.com
RFK Jr on Tylenol and autism: "It is not proof. We're doing the studies to make the proof."
wyoweeds.bsky.social
I stopped reading papers regularly when everything went online... I'd always look through the table of contents when a new issue arrived in the mail, and read or skim the ones that seemed interesting. I find it harder to catch up without that regular physical reminder.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
(these are my two most highly cited papers...)
wyoweeds.bsky.social
I published 2 papers as a direct result of some Twitter discussions that made me go find data to answer questions.

1) www.nature.com/articles/nco...

2) www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
wyoweeds.bsky.social
The photo is straight out of the camera, but for some reason looks to me like the duck was just pasted there with a photo editor. 😂🦆 #photography
A photo of a duck walking on grass with cat tails in the background. You can't see the ducks legs, so it kind of looks like the duck was badly photos hopped into the scene.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Obviously, nobody really knows. But if that's the perception of people close to the issue? Jeez.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Someone who is relatively well connected at USDA told me yesterday that lots of folks in DC have the over/under for the shutdown at 30 days...
wyoweeds.bsky.social
#bees #flowers #photography
A yellow and orange bee visiting a purple flower against a green background.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
Please post the Snakes on a Plane thing there and report back what you find.
wyoweeds.bsky.social
I saw this post 5 days after it was released. Snakes on a Plane was released nearly 20 years ago, and I still haven't seen it.

I don't know whether this is evidence in support of, or against your claim.