Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
The theory may "stand" but scientifically and logically speaking you do not seek to disprove a theory, you seek to prove it and in so doing, by default, may end up "disproving" it.
I have a theory that there are flying pink elephants in my back yard and they are what recently broke my rear bedroom window. Does that theory "stand" until you can "disprove" it? My brothers kid, who was playing in the room at the time swears it was not him who broke it and there is no quantifiable evidence as to what did break the window.
The scientific method requires a theory to be "proved"(at least to a replicatable or functionally and logically useful, standard) for it to have any validity/credibility, not the other way around. The flying pink elephant theory may "stand"(especially in the absence of a rock or some other evidence showing how the window broke or an admission by my nephew) but it has no credibility.
All that is not to say the "climate change" theory isn't credible though. As I've said, I don't know.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
Well, if you wanna pick navel fluff, you are right, but the point is the same you have to come up with an experiment that
disproves the hypothesis (which having been proven IS the theory)....and it repeatable, replicable, etc. per the terms of the scientific method.
What I find quite amazing in these sorts of discussions is that often those opposing the current scientific theory quite often don't even understand the Scientific Method and how these theories come about, nor the processes that the science establishment go through to verify and validate each and every paper that is published.