I have often argued that there is no such thing as "settled science" and that science embraces a core belief that everything is subject to review and change.

I stumbled on a review of a new book by a Dartmouth physics professor, that explains this concept in science in detail: 'The Island of Knowledge' by Marcelo Gleiser. The book does not deal with climate science but the generalizations may appropriately be applied.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"Notions of final theories are incompatible with the scientific method. Given that we can only accrue scientific knowledge from measurements of natural processes, it is by definition impossible to be certain that we know all the forces of Nature or the fundamental particles that exist; at any point in time, new technological tools may reveal the new and unexpected and thus force a revision of our current knowledge."

"It is a common misconception that scientists are interested, above all, in getting confirmation of their theories.."

Most is just common sense. However disagree with this statement: "It is a common misconception that scientists are interested, above all, in getting confirmation of their theories.."

(06-08-2014 08:41 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Most is just common sense. However disagree with this statement: "It is a common misconception that scientists are interested, above all, in getting confirmation of their theories.."

I think that might be the definition of "common misconception."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

But I understand your point. In the excerpts, the author noted that many scientists are challenged when a theory is disproven because it gives them reasons to look further. But scientists are people, too (at least I think they are) and the gratification and accolades of having a theory proven are all part of what we seek. Heck, who wouldn't want a Nobel Prize. The science prizes are given for actual accomplishments.

Cue a rant from one of our resident true believers.

(06-08-2014 03:02 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Cue a rant from one of our resident true believers.

Isn't there a philosophical line of reasoning that says nothing can be known for absolute certainty.