I'm afraid that the history of science is replete with many instances of
scientists watching out for their own best interests and egos before
attempting to disprove their own previously published hypotheses. They
are human and for many there is much money and prestige at stake.
I take it all with a very large grain of salt.
Chuck Norcutt
Johann Thorsson wrote:
> This is true. Part of the problem is that scientists speculate, that is
> what they are trained to do. They hypothesize based on all kinds of data
> and scenarios, but they don't (or should not) claim to know the truth.
> There is a reason why nothing can be more than 99.9% certain, and why things
> are supposed to be "true" when the probability is 95%. So "truth" in
> science is not the same as other people understand it to be. And all
> scientific debates must be viewed with the fact in mind that the whole
> purpose of all scientific work is to disprove something, you try to disprove
> your own work or someone's else's work, but if you fail you claim that you
> can't disprove it, but not that something is true. I don't think people
> generally understand this.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|