Clark Guy wrote:
> Science is the idea that soneone makes a claim and
> others strive to independently verify the claim.
>
Given the impossibility of confirmation (there is always an alternate
explanation) attempts at disconfirmation are usually the way to go. But even
once that is done, it is often possible to fiddle with a theory-revision rather
than accept the disconfirmation. Or just ignore the disconfirmation, hoping that
it is flawed, if you have faith in your theory. Scientists tend to have big egos
and that plays a role in their practice. But you can only hold out so long and
eventually (the hope is) the evidence holds sway over the sociology.
The evidence is not everything. There are strong arguments that it is better in
the long run to have eccentrics who explore theories for which there is not
adequate current evidence. Early proposals of continental drift were not
currently supported but led to the theory being available when the evidence
later developed. Of course, most such oddball theories do not work out.
John M.
