BioBeing

Over in this thread the following comment was made. I thought it better to address it here, since it is kind of off the main topic over there.

I'm surprised no-one has pulled you up on this one earlier! Science, as in the scientific method, is to

• observe a phenomenum,
• establish a hypothesis, and then
• test the hypothesis with experiments.

That means experiments that provide data to either (a) support the hypothesis, or (b) do not support the hypothesis.

In the case of (b) we throw the hypothesis out and start again.

In the case of (a), and after sufficient such experiments have been performed, the hypothesis is accepted as theory. Given an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor, it becomes an accepted theory. Such as evolution. Now, while thoeries may be wrong in a few aspects, and are subject to occaisionally being completely overthrown (not the data that led to the theory - just the theory - the data still has to be explained by the new theory), they are the best that we have, and are admitted to be such. Not universal truths, just the best working model that we have. Theories provide predictive power - we can make assumptions based on the theory, and they turn out correct. (Of course, if they do not, we re-examine the theory).

Now - what does this have to do with your post? You say some things do not get examined thoroughly by science. Correct. Some are quickly discounted. True. These are the ones that fail at the testing stage. If I ask "why are pancakes flat" and I have never been in a kitchen, but I have seen water buffalo near the kitchen, I may come up with a hypothesis that it is because a water buffalo sits on the pancakes to squish them. Now I can do the experiment. I go into a kitchen, without a water buffalo, and I make a pancake. It is flat, hence no water buffalo needed. I quickly discard the notion that water buffalo are required.

You also say - "other answers are not even sought". What do you mean here? To many, it would seem that seeking the water buffalo answer to flat pancakes shouldn't have been examined at all True. But, if I hadn't done that experiment, then I would be open to the charge that not all avenues had been properly explored ("some answers are not even sought"). Maybe it wasn't even a water buffalo, maybe it was a hippo. Should I test that next too...

Further, science can only test what is testable. We are unable to test the supernatural, since it is, by definition, outside of nature. People (yes, even scientists) have tried to test for things like ghosts and the soul but, to the best of my knowledge, have not found conclusive evidence for either. Thus, the default position is that the hypothesis ("souls exist" or "ghosts exist") is incorrect.

Did you have a specific example of somthing that could be tested scientifically that has not been?