Dyson: Climate models are rubbish

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I beg to differ. “Theories” can and have been definitively proven.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What the average Joe believes (the world is flat) vs. what a community of scientists believe are light years apart. Gary, you can't compare scientific discovery of 500 years ago to contemporary times. A Scientific theory is as reliable as it gets, but it doesn't mean that some new data or facts come to surface that might show otherwise. If that is the case, the theory is challenged and is modified if necessary.

Steven,

You are extremely naïve if you believe that modern scientific theories cannot be wrong.

A scientific theory is just a statement that explains observable and recorded aspects of the

world using the best level of understanding that ties all the facts together. Scientists develop

theories based on the data they have, but their theories can and often are proven wrong by

further discoveries. A theory - any theory - stands until proven wrong; it is never proven correct.

I agree there is a chance of a theory being wrong but the careful gathering of scientific data makes that unlikely unless the way by which they gather that data is faulty. But as you pointed out, I'm not a scientist, nor am I a neurosurgeon or even a family doctor, so I tend to put faith in the professionals of their prospective fields. If I have reasonable doubts, I get a second or a third opinion. I just don't understand this phenomenon of non-scientists challenging the science. If you find a scientist who is contradicting what another scientist has said before him or her, the logical thing is to find out what kind of dialogue if any has occurred between the two. Scientists don't work in a vacuum, like Dr. Frankenstein. They rely heavily on the work and data collected by other scientists, hence the notion of a scientific community. One scientist can't simply take the data and work of other scientists and concoct a hypothesis that is directly contradictory to their theory. There is peer review and scrutiny.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

I beg to differ. “Theories” can and have been definitively proven.

Depends. Is Newton's Second Law (of motion) right or wrong?

Classical mechanics is correct and very accurate when it's used to describe the motion of

everyday macroscopic objects; however the theory breaks down for very small particles

or objects approaching the speed of light.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I beg to differ. “Theories” can and have been definitively proven.

Depends. Is Newton's Second Law (of motion) right or wrong?

Classical mechanics is correct and very accurate when it's used to describe the motion of

everyday macroscopic objects; however the theory breaks down for very small particles

or objects approaching the speed of light.

Sure. If you're talking strictly about 'theoretical physics'.

Biology and chemistry however...