You obviously missed the bit where I said "save your tripe" and "I don't care".
You are assuming (in your invisible text) that one side has to be totally correct and the other must be totally wrong, which is also quite wrong.
Science does not have 'sides.' That's a pitiful invention of the television media, who enjoys the '2 talking heads' debate format. Hypothesis are subject to tests and known body of knowledge. When you have eliminated all hypothesis excepting one, you have an established theory. New hypothesis are tested against established theory, and if either the new hypothesis or the established theory fails to predict the results of the test, it is thrown out.
All hypothesis can fail to explain observed phenomena (see Quantum Mechanics). Then you have no workable general theories. Multiple hypothesis can explain observed phenomena with tests currently unable to be conducted due to technological limitations (too small, too fast, etc. (which some people believe QM falls into, but String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are their own little discussion). That's fine too - they generally get called 'theories' in the literature, but overall it's known that the correct one will eventually be established.
The 'anti-global warming' crowd has proposed hypotheses. It is caused by the sun - false, as the solar emission cycles have failed to correlate to the observed temperature rise. It is caused by natural cycles - no evidence, as past natural cycles do not correlate to current observations, so hypothesizing the first iteration of a brand new cycle both misses the point (cycles have their own causes) and therefore is generally silly (as this naturally points to the necessity of a hypothesis to explain the cycle, and thus boils down to a hypothesis that there's 'some other explanation'). It is caused by volcanoes - false, as CO2 emmissions of volcanoes are a percentage point or two of what humans emit, and sulfur compounds are observed to rapidly leave the atmosphere, similar to the dust compounds they throw up (which has a net cooling effect).
So you may posit that a crowd who clings to disproved hypotheses are as equally following the scientific method as people who hold that the hypothesis that has become established theory because it fits observations, tests, and existing theory is most likely correct. But you would be completely wrong too.
You are free to 'not care' and refer to science as 'tripe' but the beautiful thing about science is that it is not an opinion poll. Everyone in the entire universe can believe that something is true, and if its experimentally disproved or contradicted by observation, then it's not true at all.
Last edited:
