Dispelling common misconceptions about science and what scientists do

I see a lot of people on here who don't seem to understand a few basics about science and the work scientists do, so I thought I'd post this up and explain what science is -- and what it is not. The too long, didn't read version of this is, science doesn't deal with what is certain, but with what is probable.

1) Scientific laws aren't written in stone. They are accepted as reasonable, well-supported explanations for observed phenomena; or in other words, they're statements that have been tested countless times and appear to be valid. The crucial fact is that nothing is accepted as "true" in science; laws are only theories that have not yet been disproven.

2) Scientists start with a question -- for example, why does the sun appear to rise in the east and set in the west? When a scientist proposes a possible explanation, say, that the Earth rotates, bringing the sun in and out of view of a stationary observer, that's called a hypothesis. After testing the hypothesis in experiments, if it seems to be accurate, it will eventually be called a theory. So a scientific theory is not a guess -- it's been subject to investigative effort, much like detectives trying to solve a crime.

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right -- they try to prove them wrong. This is called falsification, and it basically involves trying to find circumstances in which a theory doesn't work. For example, Aristotle theorized that objects tend to come to rest and thus resting was the natural state of matter. Newton proved his theory wrong by showing that external forces such as gravity and friction slow and eventually stop moving objects. Other scientists then showed that in the absence of gravity and friction, moving objects will continue to move forever.

4) Scientists don't reach a conclusion and then stick with it. Not as a community, anyway -- scientists are always looking beyond the accepted explanations and trying to find out if something else, previously undetected, is actually at work.

5) It's not the scientist, it's the science. Scientists don't get their theories accepted by being intelligent, bold, charming or anything else -- they get their theories accepted by demonstrating, and having others demonstrate, that their theories are reasonable explanations for natural phenomena.

6) The scientific community is self-policing. Frauds exist, but they're inevitably exposed and discredited. It may take years, and people may be taken in, but eventually, the scientific community self-corrects.

7) Scientists don't start with a conclusion and then try to provide evidence; they gather evidence and then surmise a conclusion. They're not the detective determined to pin a crime on a person they don't like; they're the detective carefully examining the clues and making a reasoned conclusion as to who most likely committed the crime.

8 ) Scientists don't claim to be right or ask to be believed. They show the results of their experimentation so that others can try to show that their work was flawed. If nobody can, they deem their conclusions "acceptable," as in, a reasonable person would accept the conclusions they drew based on the evidence available.

9) Scientists deal with testable reality, not faith. The only studies I've ever seen on religion were investigating whether prayer helps ill people, because that is something that scientists can observe and experiment with. No scientist will claim there is proof that God doesn't exist, for example -- they'll claim there is no proof God does exist, which is a crucial distinction.

10) Scientists know that most of their conclusions may very well be proven wrong. They don't claim to be 100 percent sure about their conclusions. When their theories have been tested many times and haven't been falsified yet, they consider their theories to be highly probable, but never written-in-stone "truth."

1. Nobody claimed they were written in stone and quite a really poor religious anology which the scientific community, except the woke left are like

2. Not even close to what a hyposthesis is

3. Bullshit alert. How would any scientist come from a position to cure cancer to prove they cannot? That is a blatant lie. What actually happens is people try to again show only try to prove them wrong is inaccurate and really lying and evidence of a claim and some will disrepute it. Your view that scientists go into their field to simple refute is bullshit

4 So you are claiming that evolution is not true and scientists do not stick with it?

Going to stop here, as this will be an interesting point to expose someone who is inherantly lying. Not only are you poorly claiming to speak as someone as scientific. You are also utterly lying. I will give you the grace to admit to lying here or will expose you ben for doing so. Your choice

Didge, I get the feeling you're arguing for the sake of argument, so I'm going to let my statements stand.

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge, I get the feeling you're arguing for the sake of argument, so I'm going to let my statements stand.

Well I get the impresion tha\t when someone disagrees with you, that you are unable to back your view claims.

So lets start with your claim that scientists dont set out to prove theories right?

We both know you are lying

Will you admit this?

If you make staements Ben, you need to back your claims and not run away

The difference is in scientists trying to cure cancer, and scientist trying to prove that this or that treatment cures cancer.

They are working on an agenda, curing cancer in this case, but they're not trying to prove this or that cures cancer. They're eliminating proposed treatments until only the most effective remain.

Ben Reilly wrote:The difference is in scientists trying to cure cancer, and scientist trying to prove that this or that treatment cures cancer.

They are working on an agenda, curing cancer in this case, but they're not trying to prove this or that cures cancer. They're eliminating proposed treatments until only the most effective remain.

--

So they are trying to prove their theories right?

Yes or no?

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:The difference is in scientists trying to cure cancer, and scientist trying to prove that this or that treatment cures cancer.

They are working on an agenda, curing cancer in this case, but they're not trying to prove this or that cures cancer. They're eliminating proposed treatments until only the most effective remain.

--

So they are trying to prove their theories right?

Yes or no?

They're trying to prove WHETHER their theories are right.

They start with a hypothesis -- the sun moves across the sky because the Earth is rotating -- and then consider what's called the null hypothesis -- i.e., the sun does not move across the sky because the Earth is rotating. If the null hypothesis can be proven, the initial hypothesis is disproven.

Ben Reilly wrote:

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right -- they try to prove them wrong. This is called falsification, and it basically involves trying to find circumstances in which a theory doesn't work. For example, Aristotle theorized that objects tend to come to rest and thus resting was the natural state of matter. Newton proved his theory wrong by showing that external forces such as gravity and friction slow and eventually stop moving objects. Other scientists then showed that in the absence of gravity and friction, moving objects will continue to move forever.

Thank fuck all the scientists that actually found cures and proved their theories were right. Never took the unscientific Ben approach eh Ben?

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right -- they try to prove them wrong. This is called falsification, and it basically involves trying to find circumstances in which a theory doesn't work. For example, Aristotle theorized that objects tend to come to rest and thus resting was the natural state of matter. Newton proved his theory wrong by showing that external forces such as gravity and friction slow and eventually stop moving objects. Other scientists then showed that in the absence of gravity and friction, moving objects will continue to move forever.

Thank fuck all the scientists that actually found cures and proved their theories were right. Never took the unscientific Ben approach eh Ben?

Theories are only proven "right" (in more scientific terms, acceptable and probable) after all attempts to disprove them have failed.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:
--

So they are trying to prove their theories right?

Yes or no?

They're trying to prove WHETHER their theories are right.

They start with a hypothesis -- the sun moves across the sky because the Earth is rotating -- and then consider what's called the null hypothesis -- i.e., the sun does not move across the sky because the Earth is rotating. If the null hypothesis can be proven, the initial hypothesis is disproven.

Wow, do I even need to show how utterly dumb that is to explain how scientists look to prove their theories right?

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Thank fuck all the scientists that actually found cures and proved their theories were right. Never took the unscientific Ben approach eh Ben?

Theories are only proven "right" (in more scientific terms, acceptable and probable) after all attempts to disprove them have failed.

Okay lets put your really dumb view point to the test

When scientists sougtht to find the cure for Polio.

Did they.

a.... Seek to cure Polio

b... Seek to prove they could not cure poliio?

Take your time

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:
--

So they are trying to prove their theories right?

Yes or no?

They're trying to prove WHETHER their theories are right.

They start with a hypothesis -- the sun moves across the sky because the Earth is rotating -- and then consider what's called the null hypothesis -- i.e., the sun does not move across the sky because the Earth is rotating. If the null hypothesis can be proven, the initial hypothesis is disproven.

Wow, do I even need to show how utterly dumb that is to explain how scientists look to prove their theories right?

But they aren't! They will do experiment after experiment to test their theory -- not to support it, but to show that it stands up to testing.

The agenda is not to show that their theory is right, but that it hasn't been proven wrong after extensive testing.

People trying to prove that they're right ignore contradictory evidence (confirmation bias). Science doesn't work that way; it's not about marshaling an argument pro or con, but about following the evidence gathered in experimentation.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Thank fuck all the scientists that actually found cures and proved their theories were right. Never took the unscientific Ben approach eh Ben?

Theories are only proven "right" (in more scientific terms, acceptable and probable) after all attempts to disprove them have failed.

Okay lets put your really dumb view point to the test

When scientists sougtht to find the cure for Polio.

Did they.

a....  Seek to cure Polio

b... Seek to prove they could not cure poliio?

Take your time

They sought to cure polio, formed a hypothesis about what would cure polio, and then tested it. I'm sure they failed many times before they found the polio vaccine.

They didn't take a failed vaccine candidate and try to prove it worked; they proved it did not and moved on to the next vaccine candidate, testing candidates until they found one that was demonstrably effective. That's the process I'm talking about.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Wow, do I even need to show how utterly dumb that is to explain how scientists look to prove their theories right?

But they aren't! They will do experiment after experiment to test their theory -- not to support it, but to show that it stands up to testing.

The agenda is not to show that their theory is right, but that it hasn't been proven wrong after extensive testing.

People trying to prove that they're right ignore contradictory evidence (confirmation bias). Science doesn't work that way; it's not about marshaling an argument pro or con, but about following the evidence gathered in experimentation.

Really?

You are talking utter nonsense

Mnay scientists will do experiments to test their theories

Some others will try to disprove it

No scientists goes out to test a theory to disprove they thought of , but actually prove it
Only when a claim is made, do some try to disprove it

Hence what the fuck are you talking about?

Again how do you think many conditions have been cured?

By people setting out to disprove curin g them?

Seriously, you are insulting scientific thinking

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Wow, do I even need to show how utterly dumb that is to explain how scientists look to prove their theories right?

But they aren't! They will do experiment after experiment to test their theory -- not to support it, but to show that it stands up to testing.

The agenda is not to show that their theory is right, but that it hasn't been proven wrong after extensive testing.

People trying to prove that they're right ignore contradictory evidence (confirmation bias). Science doesn't work that way; it's not about marshaling an argument pro or con, but about following the evidence gathered in experimentation.

Really?

You are talking utter nonsense

Mnay scientists will do experiments to test their theories

Some others will try to disprove it

No scientists goes out to test a theory to disprove they thought of , but actually prove it
Only when a claim is made, do some try to disprove it

Hence what the fuck are you talking about?

Again how do you think many conditions have been cured?

By people setting out to disprove curin g them?

Seriously, you are insulting scientific thinking

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/falsifiability

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Okay lets put your really dumb view point to the test

When scientists sougtht to find the cure for Polio.

Did they.

a....  Seek to cure Polio

b... Seek to prove they could not cure poliio?

Take your time

They sought to cure polio, formed a hypothesis about what would cure polio, and then tested it. I'm sure they failed many times before they found the polio vaccine.

They didn't take a failed vaccine candidate and try to prove it worked; they proved it did not and moved on to the next vaccine candidate, testing candidates until they found one that was demonstrably effective. That's the process I'm talking about.

But by your thinking they set out to dispove that polio could not be cured?

That is what you are claiming

I am going to be as polite as possible

Shut up, you are ignorant of science

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really?

You are talking utter nonsense

Mnay scientists will do experiments to test their theories

Some others will try to disprove it

No scientists goes out to test a theory to disprove they thought of , but actually prove it
Only when a claim is made, do some try to disprove it

Hence what the fuck are you talking about?

Again how do you think many conditions have been cured?

By people setting out to disprove curin g them?

Seriously, you are insulting scientific thinking

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/falsifiability

What has that got to do with your claim that scientists only set out to disprove?

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Okay lets put your really dumb view point to the test

When scientists sougtht to find the cure for Polio.

Did they.

a....  Seek to cure Polio

b... Seek to prove they could not cure poliio?

Take your time

They sought to cure polio, formed a hypothesis about what would cure polio, and then tested it. I'm sure they failed many times before they found the polio vaccine.

They didn't take a failed vaccine candidate and try to prove it worked; they proved it did not and moved on to the next vaccine candidate, testing candidates until they found one that was demonstrably effective. That's the process I'm talking about.

But by your thinking they set out to dispove that polio could not be cured?

That is what you are claiming

I am going to be as polite as possible

Shut up, you are ignorant of science

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they put forth candidates for a cure for polio, then tested them to see if they could prove they did not work, to rule out false cures. This process led them to finding a cure that did work.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really?

You are talking utter nonsense

Mnay scientists will do experiments to test their theories

Some others will try to disprove it

No scientists goes out to test a theory to disprove they thought of , but actually prove it
Only when a claim is made, do some try to disprove it

Hence what the fuck are you talking about?

Again how do you think many conditions have been cured?

By people setting out to disprove curin g them?

Seriously, you are insulting scientific thinking

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/falsifiability

What has that got to do with your claim that scientists only set out to disprove?

It is the core of my claim; you're just being too stubborn and too determined to be right to see the sense of it. I'm done discussing this with you; it's frustrating, talking to a brick wall.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But by your thinking they set out to dispove that polio could not be cured?

That is what you are claiming

I am going to be as polite as possible

Shut up, you are ignorant of science

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they put forth candidates for a cure for polio, then tested them to see if they could prove they did not work, to rule out false cures. This process led them to finding a cure that did work.

This is your claim

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right

I will givbe you one last chance to admit you are talking bollocks

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What has that got to do with your claim that scientists only set out to disprove?

It is the core of my claim; you're just being too stubborn and too determined to be right to see the sense of it. I'm done discussing this with you; it's frustrating, talking to a brick wall.

Well I never even went into the rest of your claims, which were even as poor. I thought it best to challenge the really absurd claims you were making.

So I will ask again. How do you think illnesses were cured based on your revisionist history view point?

Or was it based on scientists trying to prove their theories right?

I seriously think i am dealing with the land of mushroom takers here. For people to tell me, that scientists don't try to prove their theories right

I mean who comes up with an idea and goes. " I know what. I not going to prove my theory right but disprove it"

Get a grip ben and admit you made some really stupid points

Night

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But by your thinking they set out to dispove that polio could not be cured?

That is what you are claiming

I am going to be as polite as possible

Shut up, you are ignorant of science

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they put forth candidates for a cure for polio, then tested them to see if they could prove they did not work, to rule out false cures. This process led them to finding a cure that did work.

This is your claim

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right

I will givbe you one last chance to admit you are talking bollocks

Thomas Edison said he tried 700 times to invent the light bulb before he succeeded.

My whole point is that each of those 700 attempts was a hypothesis that failed.

If he'd tried to prove each of those hypotheses correct, rather than accepting that they were failures, he'd have never invented the light bulb.

Erm...perhaps you’re both saying the same thing but in different ways? That’s what I’m reading.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

This is your claim

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right

I will givbe you one last chance to admit you are talking bollocks

Thomas Edison said he tried 700 times to invent the light bulb before he succeeded.

My whole point is that each of those 700 attempts was a hypothesis that failed.

If he'd tried to prove each of those hypotheses correct, rather than accepting that they were failures, he'd have never invented the light bulb.

Thank you for proving my point

He set out to prove his theory right did he not?

And your really dumwitted point is that because he set out to be right and failed many times before. He must have set out to be wrong and ended up being right. As he did invent the light bulb you idiot.



I will say this in the politest way

You are embarresing yourself

eddie wrote:Erm...perhaps you’re both saying the same thing but in different ways? That’s what I’m reading.

Er noooo, prehaps this is an occasion, where Ben is being really incredible stupid

All I can say is this is what the left has to offer on science, then no wonder the future is fucked

His view that sientists only go out to disprove. Would mean nothing would ever get invented

I do not mean to insult, but this has to go down as Ben being as dimwitted as tommy

Have a good evening to you both

Oh and one last thing. This is a fine example not admitting to where they are mistaken. To go off the scientists that look to disprove a hypostesis. As if this is what they all do. When many daily night and day look to cure cancer. Where from Ben's position they are only looking to prove themselves wrong. Is an utter insult, to the many greats that have helped save the lives of millions of people. They never set out to prove themselves wrong but save lives. This is what annoys me no end when people make really stupid points. Yes other scientists set out to prove theories wrong, but to claim this is th standard. Is inherantly stupid and fails to understand scienetists. I mean Ben you are a journalists and you came out with this babble

Goodnight

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

This is your claim

3) Scientists don't try to prove theories right

I will givbe you one last chance to admit you are talking bollocks

Thomas Edison said he tried 700 times to invent the light bulb before he succeeded.

My whole point is that each of those 700 attempts was a hypothesis that failed.

If he'd tried to prove each of those hypotheses correct, rather than accepting that they were failures, he'd have never invented the light bulb.

Thank you for proving my point

He set out to prove his theory right did he not?

And your really dumwitted point is that because he set out to be right and failed many times before. He must have set out to be wrong and ended up being right. As he did invent the light bulb you idiot.



I will say this in the politest way

You are embarresing yourself

Perhaps I'm not making myself understood well enough, but you're resorting to ad hominem attacks, so I'll leave it at that. People resort to name-calling when they're out of ammo.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Thank you for proving my point

He set out to prove his theory right did he not?

And your really dumwitted point is that because he set out to be right and failed many times before. He must have set out to be wrong and ended up being right. As he did invent the light bulb you idiot.



I will say this in the politest way

You are embarresing yourself

Perhaps I'm not making myself understood well enough, but you're resorting to ad hominem attacks, so I'll leave it at that. People resort to name-calling when they're out of ammo.

Or people tire when other people cannot admit that they screwed up as you did here.
I never made the really poor claims you made here andI am not a scientist. Yet you in your poor wisadom thought you could not based of science but political claptrap. Hence it was embarressing