JohnFrim wrote:
Good “science” requires that published theories and studies get questioned critically. But good scientists don’t simply claim that a study’s conclusion is absurd without looking at what may be flawed in the methods or analyses. The data, if accurately recorded and collected, is never wrong; what that data implies is open to conjecture and speculation. When the truth is finally known ALL of the data — including apparent contradictions — will fit the picture.
Regarding your statement:
”The data, if accurately recorded and collected, is never wrong . . .” Data (observations) are indeed not “wrong” — they are just facts.
There is however a problem with data if it is the result of an experiment that is SET UP to test a hypothesis in such a manner to bias the result.
Examples of this abound in the claims of persons such as Flat-Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, Pyramidologists, Crystal-healing practitioners, ancient advanced-civilization believers, and other Science-Deniers and their ilk.
They have supposed “data” to back claims, however this “data” (often anecdotal, and not repeatable in controlled conditions) is only gathered in experiments or observations specifically designed to prove the validity of their claims!
”. . . what that data implies is open to conjecture and speculation.” I regard this statement as factually untrue. The data in and of itself “implies” nothing, it is only recorded information of the result of an experiment or observation gathered to support or reject a specific hypothesis.
Any “implications” are solely the interpretations and conclusions drawn by analysis of data. “Implications” may or may not be revealed by analysis in relation to other observations, previous experiments, or known facts.
I actually consider the use of the term “implications” in the context of your posting to be a poor choice of words. Any implied harm or benefit of a scientific study (experiment) should be analyzed of course.
Results of a study or experiment do not, however, imply any widespread implication unless and until the results are verified by further experiment, case studies, trials and are then
implemented.
”When the truth is finally known ALL of the data — including apparent contradictions — will fit the picture.”.
In most cases “the truth” is never completely known — there is always the possibility new data will contradict current understanding(s).
The quoted statement does not agree with any true scientific-methodology: Hypothesis-experiment-observation-analysis-conclusions-theory-reformed hypothesis-experiment . . . The cycle never (or rarely) ends.
There are no experimental analytical procedures—no scientific procedural experimental modes—that claim to know all the truth, or even be in possession of “all the data”.
That is not how “science” works. That is why, even though a thing may be observable in practice, and may be found to fit predictions at even the six-sigma or greater level (99.999999 percent level of confidence), they are regarded as [b]Theory(/b] — not unassailable fact.
”The meaning of the term scientific theory . . . as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts.” —Wikipedia
Examples abound of theories that have been proven and quantified by mathematical proofs as well as observation.
These are regarded as “Laws”.Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Universal Law of Gravitation.
Newton's Laws of Motion.
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.
(And more).
There are numerous observed instances of natural phenomena that are not substantiated to the extent of Laws,
these are known as Theories, and include verifiable as well as debunked ones.
Examples include:
Quantum theory
Evolution by Natural Selection
General relativity
Gravity
Quantum field theory
String theory
Thermodynamics
Phlogiston theory (debunked)
Uncertainty principle
Plate Tectonic theory
Special relativity
Germ theory of disease
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
Atomic theory
Cell theory
Recapitulation theory (debunked in part).