A bit of linguistic Pepto here! Should we not be calling an unproven theory a hypothesis?

Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.

Scientific method 101.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.

Furthermore...the cherry picking of data by the different proponents of one theory or another (and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point) and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking ) is very often the result of too many scientists taking the word of too many other scientists at face value and or being ruled by their passion as opposed to their reason (scientists are human just like the rest of us) or conducting independent reaserch to confirm their findings.

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.

When the deccan taps debate began between the astronomers and the geologists the same sorry hyperbole was used and it didnt solve a thing.

In fact...its starting to look as if both parties were right on that one, it wasnt any one event but a series of events.

For a scientific theory to work as a scientific fact it must be cross disiplinarly inclussive.