Quote Originally Posted by Kuskovian View Post
Question for a side bar
: Do you accept everything a scientist tells you, or do you go out and preform the "experiments" for yourself?

If so which experimental procedures do you reproduce and which do you take on good "faith"?
I have done some experiments in the past, some during school, in astronomy, physics and chemistry, and some on my own, in astronomy and optics. Generally they were relatively easy tests of basic laws of the subject, but these form the basis of all that comes after them.

But it is true that almost all scientific "truths" I tend to accept on faith, providing there is sufficient documentation and agreement among a large number of other scientists. A good example is the cold fusion fiasco of the 90's. Everything I'd ever read said that fusion required extremely high temperatures and pressures to occur, yet the men involved in this claimed they were getting fusion at room temperature and 1 atmosphere pressure. I was very skeptical, of their claims, despite the hullabaloo raised by the media. As it turned out, their claims were discounted when other scientists were unable to duplicate their results.

So, while there is a certain amount of faith involved, something which flies in the face of common sense and established knowledge has to be taken with a grain of salt. But even these, if verified by independent researchers, can find their way into mainstream science.

Then there are the theoretical aspects, where much of what is stated is based upon interpretation of the facts as we know them. The best example of this is the conflict between those who endorsed the Steady State universe, and those who endorse the Expanding Universe. Many of the observations taken to try to resolve the issue are ambiguous at best, and others are so esoteric as to be virtually unintelligible to a non-scientist. In this kind of situation you have to examine both sides and find the one which makes the most sense to you. For me, in this instance, the Expanding Universe theory makes the most sense. It is a simpler, more elegant theory, yet seems to fit the observable universe more readily, to my mind. That doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Evidence could be discovered which will toss that theory on the trash heap, along with so many others. But that's one of the beautiful aspects of science: we understand that the truth we proclaim is based on our current understanding, and is not necessarily the whole truth. And it's not necessarily the right truth, either. It's just the best we have at the moment.

As an aside, comments made by companioncube#3 and myself in other posts on this thread, mention Isaac Asimov, and his science essays. One which is most appropriate here (which I've just reread) is called "The Relativity of Wrong". The basic idea is that right and wrong are not absolute. Science may sometimes be wrong, but most of the time it is almost right. And each new discovery brings us that much closer to be absolutely right.