Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pbartender" data-source="post: 5133451" data-attributes="member: 7533">He's half right.Science goes something like like this:You start with a question...  "Why does Ivory soap float?"First, "characterization"...  That's making observations, definitions and measurements of the thing you want to study.  In your example, it would be measuring the density of the water, defining the purity of the water used, the density of ivory soap, defining the chemical composition of Ivory soap, making direct observations of ivory soap floating in water, perhaps dissect a bar of Ivory soap and other non-floating soaps to compare what they look like inside, making direct observations of the manufacturing process of Ivory soap and other non-floating soap.Next, a "hypothesis"...  You come up with a theoretical and hypothetical statement that explains the measurements and observations.  "Ivory soap floats, because of miniscule air bubbles that reduce the density of Ivory soap enough to allow it to float in water."Now, we make a few equally hypothetical predictions based on that theory...  "If tiny bubbles in the bar make Ivory soap float, then if we make a bar of Ivory soap without bubbles it shouldn't float.  Likewise, a bar of non-Ivory soap with enough tiny bubbles to float should have a similar internal structure to Ivory soap."Then, we perform experiments based on those predictions...  Build a bar of Ivory soap with no bubbles, and see if it floats.  We do this many, many times to make sure we didn't make a mistake in the process of the experiment.Now we check the results of the experiment against our theory and its predictions.  If the evidence supports our theory, then great -- try more experiments and keep gathering supportive evidence until there's absolutely no doubt that your theory is correct.  At that point, the scientific community may consider your theory fact, and it become a Law.If it doesn't, then we've possibly proven our theory wrong.  First we double check our experiment to make certain it was valid.  If it is, we go back almost to square one, revise our theory to fit the new data, make new predictions and try new experiments.The trouble comes because there are several Theories out there that are pretty good at explaining something, but simply can't be conclusively proven due to the nature of the question...  Evolution and the Big Bang are good examples.  At this point in our technological history, we've no good way to recreate them in a laboratory in a way that proves them without a doubt.  People on both sides of the fence often confuse those sorts of Theories with Laws.  The forget that while there is a lot of evidence pointing toward those Theories and that while those Theories are probably the bests explanations we currently have, that we still don't have quite enough evidence to consider them fact, and that on-going experiments and observations are continually causing those Theories to be debated and revised, even if in small ways.However, where your friend is most wrong is that scientists (should) never go into an experiment with the purposeful intent of proving a theory right or wrong (although due to politics in scientific fields, it often happens that way regardless).  It is too easy to rig an experiment or massage the data to give the results you want (the recent scandal concerning global warming data is a good example).  Scientists are meant to be unbiased, merely comparing the collected data with the expected results, reporting how they correlate or don't, and then considering how that affects the original hypothesis.</blockquote>

Verification