Do you trust scientific theory?

When scientists make conclusions (especially if it stands in contrast to a previously held popular belief) about historical figures, medications, the planets, etc., etc., do you easily trust their theories?

Eh, I have become skeptical of what scientists have to say given how bias has crept into the industry and has turned it into a political tactic instead of a learning tool.

I remain a skeptic, let's not forget a while back scientists believed they found Jesus' remains, which of course they were not, then thought they found Joan of Arc's finger, and again it was not, and I knew both times it wouldn't be but the experts couldn't get that.

^^^^I think Science is worthwhile. It's scientists who create problems.

Not all the time no.

Only a fool wouldnt trust something that has been proven. For the most part....when its clear and concrete proof....I do.

I blindly follow anything someone in a lab coat has to say.

No. I am very skeptic. Much of it, to me, is just theoretic, and it bothers me that science likes to present itself as concrete evidence. But I have theories of my own and those are the ones I stick to until I'm proven otherwise.

Bluesmama wrote:No. I am very skeptic. Much of it, to me, is just theoretic, and it bothers me that science likes to present itself as concrete evidence. But I have theories of my own and those are the ones I stick to until I'm proven otherwise.

See this is the thing, some people blindly believe if it's science, it's fact, also let's not forget that just recently they came out and said there is no triceratops and we spent how many years believing there was based on what science found?

Supernova wrote: See this is the thing, some people blindly believe if it's science, it's fact, ...

Did you not read my comments in post #6?

Science and scientific theory are ongoing processes. No one except the uninformed non-scientist believes anything blindly as 'science' which is merely a field of study not an absolute statement of 'fact' fixed in stone.

Speaking of which:

Supernova wrote:also let's not forget that just recently they came out and said there is no triceratops and we spent how many years believing there was based on what science found?

I was not familiar with this so did a quick search.

“… Paleontologists at the Montana State University argue that the Triceratops and his kissing cousin, the Torosaurus, were actually the same dinosaur at different stages of growth. Their findings, published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, say that this case of mistaken prehistoric identity is quite understandable, given that the skulls of young dinosaurs underwent extensive changes as the animals got older.

"Paleontologists are at a disadvantage because we can't go out into the field and observe a living Triceratops grow up from a baby to an adult," John Scannella, one of the co-authors of the study told the Montana State University news service. "We have to put together the story based on fossils. In order to get the complete story, you need to have a large sample of fossils from many individuals representing different growth stages." …

What it looks like is a misnomer of the fossils that they have. They thot there were two species of similar animal when it MAY actually be an immature version of the same animal.

This is not just in paleontology. Here in South Florida we have these huge philodendrons which were once thot to be a different species from what you may have in a pot up north called 'Devils Ivy" or scindapsis. Yep, the little-leaved plant you have growing by your window, when it lives for years in its native outdoors will create foot long leaves with holes in them.

However, this all brings us back to "science." which is the ongoing process of study of things with a scientific method of weighing new facts to come to a logical conclusion. It is working, but it is not finished, so don't get too attached to what you think is a conclusive 'fact' when in fact it is just the knowledge of the moment.