|
Science operates
something like a court of law. A group of scientists presents a
hypothesis to other scientists in their field to explain certain observations they
have made. These scientist then check them, and may suggest other hypotheses that, in their view, are a better fit to the
observations. The ensuing discussions (`peer review') can be as lively and vigorous
as those in any courtroom. Eventually a judgment is arrived at where hypothesis
is replaced by Theory. Theory differs from hypothesis in that it is
provisionally accepted as `fact’, or `The Truth’, until new
observations, perhaps allowed by new observational technology, bring
it back before the `court’ for review.
Occasionally
a `hung jury’ occurs and the several hypotheses remain as such. One
example is `String Theory’ because of the current difficulty in
providing sufficient supporting evidence.
On very
rare occasions, highly-regarded professionals instead become
highly conservative authorities who impede the vital consensual
progress of science with their fixed views. It can require a certain bloody-minded
rebellion on the part of a few individuals to get past
such roadblocks.
|
