Re:NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater Tha...
by guscost on Sunday November 01, 2015 @07:41PM
(#10489248)
If you are claiming that "new scientific truth" in that context does not presuppose new evidence disproving an outdated theory (or a simpler explanation for existing evidence, which falsifies the outdated theory by making it superfluous), then what does it mean? Just any old idea from someone who happens to be younger?
Re:NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater Tha...
by yongjik on Sunday November 01, 2015 @08:59PM
(#10489505)
In the context of this thread, I'm saying that scientific progress is being made (in some sense) as more and more people accept the reality of AGW, which "falsified" the previous theory of "We have no idea what's going on." Scientists not being enthusiastic to disprove the core tenet of a very successful theory is not an evidence of laziness. Not everyone can be Einstein, and being Einstein requires you to be actually right (and the previous theory to have a fault that cannot be easily explained, e.g., Michelson-Morley experiment).
Besides, not all scientific progress is made by falsifying incorrect theories. Quoting Max Planck:
> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
(Of course, whether to call this a "scientific progress" is a matter of debate, but frankly if it advances mankind's state of understanding nature then that's good enough for me.)