[jibbirish]

This is the very core of our scientific method (critical rationalism, Karl Popper [1]), theoretical models can only be used in science when they can be falsified. That is why we call them hypothesis (from the Greek word for assumption [2]). Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive.

For example, we can observe a thousand white swans in the world, and hypothesize that all swans are white. That is until we encounter that one black swan, and our hypothesis has been falsified.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

[DougWebb]

No, the black swan is a figment of your imagination. It wasn't a swan. You didn't know what you were looking at. You made it up. I don't care that lots of people saw it, you're all delusional. You're crackpots.

The problem with the scientific method is that scientists become very attached to their hypotheses, and the longer a hypothesis stands the more attached scientists get. This causes them to reject contradictory evidence, often going to ridiculous lengths to do so. A change of the hypotheses, a scientific revolution, only happens on the fringes of science when a maverick persists in examining evidence that most scientists reject.

[akiselev]

I would recommend reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn.

Scientific revolutions are far more widespread and involve many more scientists than you may think. Even during the earliest stages of the Copernican revolution there were many scientists who ascribed to the ideals. You may only hear about Copernicus, Darwin, Maxwell, and a few other notable scientists but the revolutions included many many people. Some of these people may have irrationally stuck to their previous hypotheses at each of these transitions but that is GOOD. Skepticism in science is critical to its function. If the skepticism is not entirely misplaced or competing theories still have merit for exploration, it will not die out (It's more complicated than this, but for the most part holds true).

As for the climate change in reply to this posts' parent: go on scholar.google.com and find real peer reviewed papers on climate change or go find the high impact environmental journals and often cited papers. Then find the papers that cite those papers that contain actual data!

Scientists have gathered a massive amount of data on melting ice, carbon dioxide concentrations, and world wide pollution. The jury is still out on whether or not humans are a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions but it is irrelevant when atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures are increasing. This may simply be a natural cycle but it is wise to err on the side of caution until we know more about the equilibrium conditions of the system.

The more troubling problem is pollution and deforestation that reduces the number of oxygen producing organisms. Even after ice ages and mass extinction events, the most important organisms for oxygen production in our atmosphere have been phytoplankton, which currently account for probably about half of all of the oxygen produced by plants. Already there is evidence pollution is drastically reducing these populations [1][2]. If this is proven to be true, there is unlikely to be some other mechanism on Earth to replace the phytoplankton in oxygen production (unless we force the evolution of a phytoplankton species immune to industrial pollution...)

Edit: [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/nature0...

[2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/nature0...

I apologize that these papers are behind a paywall, but no news article for the public can do them justice. When you jump into the data for both papers you see science in action: a complex web of variables and events that we are trying to understand.

[meaty]

Prime example: climate change.

We have precisely fuck all idea what is going on regardless of the models.

Proof of this can be found by examining all the climate change news articles based on scientific papers going back to the impending ice age in 1972 (people have a short memory for climatology theories).

[raverbashing]

Thank you, you explained better an beyond the usual repetition

There's so much of this it's not even funny. The last part of my post is in this gist.

But in physics this is easier to work around. In other areas not so much

Also, the scientific method and Popper's ideas are a philosophical construct. One has to think: who watches the watchman?

[meaty]

Elegantly described!