Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merkuri" data-source="post: 5134163" data-attributes="member: 41321">One important aspect of science is that it needs to be peer-reviewed.If I come up with an experiment that says ivory soap floats it's not good science unless other scientists can take my experiment and repeat it.&nbsp; It's been a while since I was in school, but I remember reading about a couple scientists who claimed to have created cold fusion (which, to the layman, should probably be better called &quot;not frickin' hot fusion&quot;), but no other scientists could duplicate their results.&nbsp; The scientific community assumed that something was wrong in the original experiment which corrupted the results.&nbsp; Something needs to be proved again and again and again before it's accepted by the scientific community.I had an argument with somebody once about science, and his argument was that the scientists expect us to believe everything they say about a subject, and this is definitely not true.&nbsp; A theory needs to have a repeatable experiment behind it, or it needs to line up with all (or most of) the available data before it's accepted by the scientific community, and if you have the equipment you can repeat the experiment and see the results for yourself.&nbsp; I remember in physics class doing some fascinating experiments to prove some theories.Another side to this is that science WANTS to be challenged.&nbsp; A good scientist won't put forth a theory and just expect everybody to believe him.&nbsp; A good scientist wants people to challenge his theory, to come up with experiments that disprove him.&nbsp; A good theory can stand up to these challenges, and a bad one will fall by the wayside.&nbsp; This is a good thing.&nbsp; It means that only the good theories survive.Science is a journey.&nbsp; Scientists do not say, &quot;This is how things work,&quot; they say, &quot;This is how we think things work today.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merkuri, post: 5134163, member: 41321"] One important aspect of science is that it needs to be peer-reviewed. If I come up with an experiment that says ivory soap floats it's not good science unless other scientists can take my experiment and repeat it. It's been a while since I was in school, but I remember reading about a couple scientists who claimed to have created cold fusion (which, to the layman, should probably be better called "not frickin' hot fusion"), but no other scientists could duplicate their results. The scientific community assumed that something was wrong in the original experiment which corrupted the results. Something needs to be proved again and again and again before it's accepted by the scientific community. I had an argument with somebody once about science, and his argument was that the scientists expect us to believe everything they say about a subject, and this is definitely not true. A theory needs to have a repeatable experiment behind it, or it needs to line up with all (or most of) the available data before it's accepted by the scientific community, and if you have the equipment you can repeat the experiment and see the results for yourself. I remember in physics class doing some fascinating experiments to prove some theories. Another side to this is that science WANTS to be challenged. A good scientist won't put forth a theory and just expect everybody to believe him. A good scientist wants people to challenge his theory, to come up with experiments that disprove him. A good theory can stand up to these challenges, and a bad one will fall by the wayside. This is a good thing. It means that only the good theories survive. Science is a journey. Scientists do not say, "This is how things work," they say, "This is how we think things work today." [/QUOTE]

Verification