Thread: is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

is it possible for one group of scientists use science to prove one thing...and be accurate.. and another group to use the same science..to prove something else...and be accurate....

is there even a 1% chance of that happening?

Originally Posted by groupthink

is it possible for one group of scientists use science to prove one thing...and be accurate.. and another group to use the same science..to prove something else...and be accurate....

is there even a 1% chance of that happening?

Using the exact same science? No.

no. Not much in the world is actually proven though, many more theories then proofs exist.

Originally Posted by Hannibal

Using the exact same science? No.

so the thousands of man made global warming scientist.....and the anti-global warming scientists are using different science? or are they both right? or is one lying?

Originally Posted by groupthink

so the thousands of man made global warming scientist.....and the anti-global warming scientists are using different science? or are they both right? or is one lying?

they are studying theories, not proofs.

Originally Posted by Hannibal

Using the exact same science? No.

Two separate groups of scientists may employ the same scientific methods,
test and test conditions,
methodology, and even the same data analysis protocols,
and yes,
arrive at different conclusions.

The differences in outcomes are usually found in the data source, sample size, and the management of the effort.

As far as both of them being 'right', or both of them having 'proven' totally opposite things, that is a matter for the public reading the reports to decide.

Scientists rarely operate in terms of 'we proved this or that'.

True scientists offer a hypothesis, collect data in an objective and scientific fashion, analyze the data, and then render a report that concludes whether the hypothesis was supported by the data.
And if so, whether that support was of a statistically-significant nature.

Originally Posted by sparky2

Two separate groups of scientists may employ the same scientific methods,
test and test conditions,
methodology, and even the same data analysis protocols,
and yes,
arrive at different conclusions.

The differences in outcomes are usually found in the data source, sample size, and the management of the effort.

As far as both of them being 'right', or both of them having 'proven' totally opposite things, that is a matter for the public reading the reports to decide.

Scientists rarely operate in terms of 'we proved this or that'.

True scientists offer a hypothesis, collect data in an objective and scientific fashion, analyze the data, and then render a report that concludes whether the hypothesis was supported by the data.
And if so, whether that support was of a statistically-significant nature.

Yes, they can do as you say. But for something to become a scientific fact or even a theory, it must be able to be recreated every time with the same procedures and measurements. Must be able to be replicated.

I guess what I am saying is,
try to think in terms of good science, not in terms of web-forum bickering.

A pedestrian knucklehead would cry, 'they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that X exists', while a proper scientist who actually worked on the study would say, 'we found that the data and evidence offered statistically-significant support to the hypothesis that X is real'.

This is a fact; Totally separate groups of differing political persuasions will read the same report, and come to different conclusions, depending upon the cherry-picking of certain portions of the report that support their particular view.

And BOTH will claim that the study supported their position.

Originally Posted by Friendly

Yes, they can do as you say. But for something to become a scientific fact or even a theory, it must be able to be recreated every time with the same procedures and measurements. Must be able to be replicated.

I agree 100%.
But the OP wasn't positing on scientific fact or established theory, not in my observation.
He was hanging an un-anchored thought out there, and then dropping the other political shoe a few posts later; the tired old 'global warming' chestnut.

And if 'global warming' is the topic, then the field (and popular, non-scientific literature) is rich with examples of junk science, bad science, and politically-motivated pseudo-science.

In my observation anyway.