mumra71294

Theres a BBC podcast called the history of the world in a 100 objects. It's quite interesting. Have you listened to it?

Layman here.

" We go out (to the south Pole) and measure the thing, and we actually see what the theory predicts!"

So basically you got the data you were expecting. As I understand, it does increase the probability of the theory to be true and reflected in the actual physical universe. But isn't it still a probability? I mean isn't there a difference between 'probably true' and 'definitely true'? What if the same data is explained by an alternative theory?

What I am trying to say is shouldn't scientists be more...umm open-ended? I mean acknowledge that because they have data to prove a theory automatically increases the probability of a theory to be true, but a small probability still lingers on that the theory may not be true after all if some new data comes up? And maybe try to give multiple hypothesis and theories which could be possible explanations about the data received.

As we all know that science is mostly based on inductive reasoning, yet I still find it illogical that the scientific community often becomes dogmatic and talks about absolute truths, when all of them are probabilities.

This question is about the nature and attitudes of the scientific communities rather than the method of science. And I want to get a perspective about this from a person who is working inside the field rather than some distant post-modern philosopher who is just speculating.