4 ms·

"stories" are the tragedy with science. I don't care who was called what and who changed stance. All I need to know is both sides of the argument and the streng

• rgrieselhuber 17y ago
  Exactly. Unlike with any particular dogma, science, by definition is supposed to change its "stance" as new evidence becomes available.
  • DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Yes, but science is supposed to rest on falsifiability. The "story" is supposed to change because the hypotheses are supposed to become more refined. A previous hypothesis was tested and found wrong, and a new one is now put forward. Without falsifiability there is no science. This same situation -- making the narrative fit the data instead of changing hypotheses -- is what led to Karl Popper's beautiful critique of Marxism (which also claimed to be scientific and also just changed the narrative once facts didn't match up with original forecasts) Scientific-sounding speculation or scientific consensus is not the same as science. If all you have is speculation, you can change that willy-nilly, whereas if you had a hypothesis, a change would require a truly new way of looking at things. Without falsifiability, you're never wrong -- you just keep changing your story. And if you're never wrong because you creatively adapt your story to meet changing conditions, you don't have science, you have religion.