Each scientific theory may stand on the shoulders, but if you go look up the detail of proper scientific process (aka applying the technology) you'll notice that each investigation results on in a theory. The more times the theory is tested then the higher probably, the higher confidence level that said result _might_ apply in a similiar situation (for no two events can be exactly the same). To deny this is to a kind of "lay-faith" about the scientific principles. And yes the increase of probablity does mean that a naturalistic religion (ie process) based on interative testing should give a model that we can take at faith value. (which is why the people wanted to people the anti-immune doctor).
But there's where the speculatioin comes in. We haven't been able to test some of these things, only give levels of confidence. If a hypothesis says the global warming will change by 2 degrees in the next year and it moves by 5 then the scientific theory is wrong. It doesn't prove it "more right" just because went in the right direction, and they can't do as I have seen so many PhD students do and rebuild the results values from their data just qualify their funding/paper!!!! If it's out of window of the results then their model is incorrect, and that means when it gets put into application elsewhere, in the field, it's confidence level is way off. But to back such theories then is a "denial faith" no different from Moonies, or proponents of the guys on anti-immunisation (or early cold fusion)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 05:54 pm (UTC)Each scientific theory may stand on the shoulders, but if you go look up the detail of proper scientific process (aka applying the technology) you'll notice that each investigation results on in a theory. The more times the theory is tested then the higher probably, the higher confidence level that said result _might_ apply in a similiar situation (for no two events can be exactly the same).
To deny this is to a kind of "lay-faith" about the scientific principles. And yes the increase of probablity does mean that a naturalistic religion (ie process) based on interative testing should give a model that we can take at faith value. (which is why the people wanted to people the anti-immune doctor).
But there's where the speculatioin comes in. We haven't been able to test some of these things, only give levels of confidence. If a hypothesis says the global warming will change by 2 degrees in the next year and it moves by 5 then the scientific theory is wrong. It doesn't prove it "more right" just because went in the right direction, and they can't do as I have seen so many PhD students do and rebuild the results values from their data just qualify their funding/paper!!!! If it's out of window of the results then their model is incorrect, and that means when it gets put into application elsewhere, in the field, it's confidence level is way off. But to back such theories then is a "denial faith" no different from Moonies, or proponents of the guys on anti-immunisation (or early cold fusion)