h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wrong laconian. Novo, then you were taught WRONG, b/c the first step is to develop a HYPOTHESIS, and then run experiments to test whether it is TRUE or FALSE (a test which indicates it's not false isn't equal to a test which indicates it's true).

Over the course of many iterations of this cycle your HYPOTHESIS could gain much EXPERIMENTAL backing, thus becoming a THEORY.

But such experiments should be carefully scrutinised because they can be easily fixed to prove whether an experiment is 'TRUE' or 'FALSE'. Surely everyone who's done schoolboy science knows that? In my A-level coursework I wasn't getting results close to what I needed, so I fiddled the figures.

Who said they shouldn't be scrutinized? What experiments are you claiming haven't been scrutinized?

I would think you would be able to see that nowhere in my short post did I claim experiments weren't scrutinised.

I'm speaking in broader terms here. People often misinterpret or misunderstand science because they don't analyse it properly. Many of the arguments for solar activity being the main climate change agent fall over when subjected to proper scrutiny.

Hello Arnie,

I apologise for not using the word 'HYPOTHESIS'. As to the rest of your description of experiments, isn't that roughly what I said?

I was taught the chemistry and physics approach , which as I described was incumbent upon the propounder of the hypothesis to prove it wrong. Sufficient failures would then prove that it was right.

Any other approach is almost bound to incline the experimentor to 'see' possible proof erroniously' something which detractors of the hypothesis will delight in.

Novo

I think we're roughly talking about the same thing. It's just our expressions are different. We all have a reasonable understanding of the scientific process.

I could run a chemical reaction, and claim magical butterflies cause it to work. I could then run an experiment showing that jelly beans are not necessary for the chemical reaction. If I run enough of those, must it be the case that magical butterflies cause the chemical reaction to work? No. That was the (subtle?) point I was trying to make as difference between our defintions Novo, about the requirement that you run experiments which determine whether it is true or false, not just whether the hypothesis is false.

laconian, when you started your post in response to my post with the phrase "But shouldn't..." that mean you're stating that I've neglected something in my post. Ergo you were saying I was suggesting scientific results shouldn't be scrutinized. Therefore, I asked where I add suggested scientific results shouldn't be scrutinized. Quod erat demonstrandum.

A misunderstanding, Arnie. I didn't necessarily mean that you had neglected something. It was more a statement of fact.

My apologies as well I obviously misunderstood your post.

I love it how, no matter how many LEDs numbering the pages of a conversation like this, it never reaches a satisfactory conclusion.