|
Science operates
something like a court of law. A group of scientists presents a
hypothesis to their colleagues to explain certain observations they
have made. Other scientists in their field check them, then suggest
other hypotheses that, in their view, are a better fit to the
observations. The ensuing discussions can be as lively and vigorous
as those in any courtroom. Eventually it is all put to a `jury’
made up of the most highly-regarded professionals in the field (the
`peer review’ process), and a judgment 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 `turn rogue' and become
highly conservative authorities who impede the vital consensual
progress of science with their fixed views. The `failsafe’ of
ultimate provisionality fails. It can require a certain bloody-minded
and courageous rebellion on the part of a few individuals to get past
such roadblocks.
|
