What assumptions do scientists/science make?

[got tonkaed]

Logic dictates that if homosexuality were an inherited trait as "science" seems to claim today, it would have been weeded out of existance by now as homosexuals do not reproduce.

I am not sure i at all agree with this understanding of genetics.

[Martin Ronne]

Again and again, we hear "scientists and Creationists begin from differing assumptions". This is why, we are told, we simply disagree.

OK, I'll play ... what assumptions do you feel scientists make that are wrong?

That they're even scientists to begin with!

[TheProwler]

Logic dictates that if homosexuality were an inherited trait as "science" seems to claim today, it would have been weeded out of existance by now as homosexuals do not reproduce.

I am not sure i at all agree with this understanding of genetics.

Further to that, I think homosexuals do reproduce. I've met quite a number of men who I suspect are gay, but are married with children.

But, if there is a gay gene, it might be a case where you can take two non-gay parents and make a gay kid. Recessive genes and all that stuff.

Here's a quote from wiki:

"For example, in humans, if a person inherits the allele for free earlobes from one parent and the one for attached earlobes from the other, that person will have free earlobes. Thus the free lobe allele is said to be dominant over the attached lobe allele (and the attached lobe allele is said to be recessive to the free lobe allele). In order to have attached earlobes, a person must inherit the allele for attached earlobes from both parents. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that either parent must have attached earlobes - since both parents could be carrying the allele for attached lobes while outwardly having free lobes."

This could be similar for the gay gene (if there is such a thing).

[PLAYER57832]

Most scientists are wrong about all of these things.

In what way are they wrong? What, in your view, is the scientific community's stand on fortune telling of the weather? And what is your stand on fortune telling of the weather? And what evidence can you provide to support this stance?

My friend told me a story about his crazy(awesome) grandpa today..

A Sunny Day IN Georgia...
Weather man on TV: "and we can expect clouds and heavy rain..."
Friend's Grandpa calls TV station: "LOOK OUTSIDE YOU DAMN FOOLS!!"

Meteorologists are wrong as often as they're right it seems. I can more accurately predict the weather by going outside than watching TV.

This is not a wrong assumption because Meteorologists KNOW they are often wrong. They are making the best guess AND, in most cases, phrase their predictions in terms of probabilities.

As for the rest.. again, what assumptions do you feel those represent?

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER, you are way off track on everything you said to me.

I said scientists make assumptions. You disagree (No No No). I respond. Then you go on to explain why scientists make assumptions.

The bottom line is that to assume means you are taking something as true without proof. Of course, you can pull up individuals who make mistakes. However, science is the study of proof and evidence.

Most of what you put forward is questioning results, not pointing out baseline assumptions.


However, I will put forward a few assumptions scientists do make:

We assume the sun will rise tommorrow (except in polar regions during winter, etc.). Why? A. It has for the life of humankind. B. If it does not we won't be around.

A looser assumption is that basic principals that apply to Earth today applied in the past. This has to be qualified, because we know that many things actually changed. Also, most scientists who study the ancient past are open to seeking other possibilities, they just have not evidenced themselves.

This is the distinction I make, then. Many of the things you put forward as assumptions are really just operating ideas. They are essentially educated guesses that scientists, others make until and unless they are proven false. However, because they might be proven false, they are not base-line assumptions. They are operating guesses or temporary assumptions.

Science does make a lot of those. In many cases, what starts as a guess is proven. In other cases, it never will be.

[GabonX]

Logic dictates that if homosexuality were an inherited trait as "science" seems to claim today, it would have been weeded out of existance by now as homosexuals do not reproduce.

I am not sure i at all agree with this understanding of genetics.

Further to that, I think homosexuals do reproduce. I've met quite a number of men who I suspect are gay, but are married with children.

But, if there is a gay gene, it might be a case where you can take two non-gay parents and make a gay kid. Recessive genes and all that stuff.

Here's a quote from wiki:

"For example, in humans, if a person inherits the allele for free earlobes from one parent and the one for attached earlobes from the other, that person will have free earlobes. Thus the free lobe allele is said to be dominant over the attached lobe allele (and the attached lobe allele is said to be recessive to the free lobe allele). In order to have attached earlobes, a person must inherit the allele for attached earlobes from both parents. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that either parent must have attached earlobes - since both parents could be carrying the allele for attached lobes while outwardly having free lobes."

This could be similar for the gay gene (if there is such a thing).

The point is that if this were a genetic trait, it would be removed over time. There would be less and less gays as time progressed and at his stage of human evolution there would be next to none left.

It appears that the exact opposite is happening, that the more accetable homosexuality is socially, the more gays there are. People claim that this has to do with more gays coming out, but this does not make sense for the previously mentioned reasons.

Frankly I don't care that much. I don't think that a person is bad just because they are gay, but I think that this is an example of science being swayed by the politics of the era.

Most scientists are wrong about all of these things.

In what way are they wrong? What, in your view, is the scientific community's stand on fortune telling of the weather? And what is your stand on fortune telling of the weather? And what evidence can you provide to support this stance?

My friend told me a story about his crazy(awesome) grandpa today..

A Sunny Day IN Georgia...
Weather man on TV: "and we can expect clouds and heavy rain..."
Friend's Grandpa calls TV station: "LOOK OUTSIDE YOU DAMN FOOLS!!"

Meteorologists are wrong as often as they're right it seems. I can more accurately predict the weather by going outside than watching TV.

This is not a wrong assumption because Meteorologists KNOW they are often wrong. They are making the best guess AND, in most cases, phrase their predictions in terms of probabilities.

Essentially you've just conceded that scientists do make assumptions. They may be based on probabilities, but nevertheless they are assumptions. The fact that they continue to do this when they "KNOW they are often wrong" serves to reinforce the point.

[StiffMittens]

This is not a wrong assumption because Meteorologists KNOW they are often wrong. They are making the best guess AND, in most cases, phrase their predictions in terms of probabilities.

Essentially you've just conceded that scientists do make assumptions. They may be based on probabilities, but nevertheless they are assumptions. The fact that they continue to do this when they "KNOW they are often wrong" serves to reinforce the point.

Nope. That is a proposition (i.e. an assertion formulated in such a way that it may be proven true or false), not an assumption. The weatherman DOES NOT say: I assume it's going to rain tomorrow, the weatherman DOES say: I predict that it will rain tomorrow. (Also the cow says: Moo!).

[GabonX]

This is not a wrong assumption because Meteorologists KNOW they are often wrong. They are making the best guess AND, in most cases, phrase their predictions in terms of probabilities.

Essentially you've just conceded that scientists do make assumptions. They may be based on probabilities, but nevertheless they are assumptions. The fact that they continue to do this when they "KNOW they are often wrong" serves to reinforce the point.

Nope. That is a proposition (i.e. an assertion formulated in such a way that it may be proven true or false), not an assumption. The weatherman DOES NOT say: I assume it's going to rain tomorrow, the weatherman DOES say: I predict that it will rain tomorrow. (Also the cow says: Moo!).

If a person makes a prediction about anything that they could not be certain is the case, they have made an assumption.

[StiffMittens]

This is not a wrong assumption because Meteorologists KNOW they are often wrong. They are making the best guess AND, in most cases, phrase their predictions in terms of probabilities.

Essentially you've just conceded that scientists do make assumptions. They may be based on probabilities, but nevertheless they are assumptions. The fact that they continue to do this when they "KNOW they are often wrong" serves to reinforce the point.

Nope. That is a proposition (i.e. an assertion formulated in such a way that it may be proven true or false), not an assumption. The weatherman DOES NOT say: I assume it's going to rain tomorrow, the weatherman DOES say: I predict that it will rain tomorrow. (Also the cow says: Moo!).

If a person makes a prediction about anything that they could not be certain is the case, they have made an assumption.

No they haven't. Read a dictionary. Assumptions are made in the abscence of evidence. Predictions are made based on available evidence (be that observations, past experiences, etc.).

But let's move on to Sasquatch. Present your evidence regarding the big hairy pixie what hides in the forest.

[PLAYER57832]

This is not a wrong assumption because Meteorologists KNOW they are often wrong. They are making the best guess AND, in most cases, phrase their predictions in terms of probabilities.

Essentially you've just conceded that scientists do make assumptions. They may be based on probabilities, but nevertheless they are assumptions. The fact that they continue to do this when they "KNOW they are often wrong" serves to reinforce the point.

Nope. That is a proposition (i.e. an assertion formulated in such a way that it may be proven true or false), not an assumption. The weatherman DOES NOT say: I assume it's going to rain tomorrow, the weatherman DOES say: I predict that it will rain tomorrow. (Also the cow says: Moo!).

If a person makes a prediction about anything that they could not be certain is the case, they have made an assumption.

No they haven't. Read a dictionary. Assumptions are made in the abscence of evidence. Predictions are made based on available evidence (be that observations, past experiences, etc.).

But let's move on to Sasquatch. Present your evidence regarding the big hairy pixie what hides in the forest.

An assumption is believed to be true. Weather is a prediction framed within probabilities. They don't assume anything. They say, "based on the evidence we see, this seems a likely outcome, but it is not certain".

[TheProwler]

Haha, we disagree.

You describe science and the scientific community how it would be if it were without major flaws. I am saying it isn't like that. You've actually said it isn't like that in previous posts, so it seems you are arguing with yourself. You can't discount the outside influences and the bad scientists, as you've tried to do.

We assume the sun will rise tommorrow (except in polar regions during winter, etc.). Why? A. It has for the life of humankind. B. If it does not we won't be around.

You know it's actually the Earth spinning that makes it appear that the sun is rising, right? Haha!

Also, there are top scientists that would argue that the Earth has experienced polar shifts during the life of humankind. And at least some of those shifts have caused extending periods of darkness/light in different regions of the world. So your answer is flawed.

[PLAYER57832]

The point is that if this were a genetic trait, it would be removed over time. There would be less and less gays as time progressed and at his stage of human evolution there would be next to none left.

Not necessarily.

It could be, as with sickle cell, that homosexuality allows some people a means of survival. It need only offer a slight advantage in some areas to survive within the human genome.

However, most scientists now seem to feel it is a combination of genetics and environmental/biological causes. Chemicals in the environment, perhaps, or something else.

[PLAYER57832]

Haha, we disagree.

You describe science and the scientific community how it would be if it were without major flaws. I am saying it isn't like that. You've actually said it isn't like that in previous posts, so it seems you are arguing with yourself. You can't discount the outside influences and the bad scientists, as you've tried to do.

You look at trees, I look at the whole forest.

I am not talking perfection, just assumptions. You are mostly talking results.

We assume the sun will rise tommorrow (except in polar regions during winter, etc.). Why? A. It has for the life of humankind. B. If it does not we won't be around.

You know it's actually the Earth spinning that makes it appear that the sun is rising, right? Haha!

Also, there are top scientists that would argue that the Earth has experienced polar shifts during the life of humankind. And at least some of those shifts have caused extending periods of darkness/light in different regions of the world. So your answer is flawed.

The Earth's magnetic poles have shifted, and I believe there have been minor shifts in the tilt. However, none of that negates what I said. For one thing... did you notice the "etc".

Most of what you call assumptions fall in that category. It gets rather reduntant to say over and over "a pear will mature in roughly x days providing there is no tidal wave, hurricane, a vandal with a chainsaw, a major disease to hit the pear tree, the sun does not explode, it is on Earth, in our universe, within human time frame.....etc, etc. etc." Saying "pears tend to mature in x days" is sufficient.

But again, from a scientific perspective, those things are understood to be limitations.

[TheProwler]

If a person makes a prediction about anything that they could not be certain is the case, they have made an assumption.

No they haven't. Read a dictionary. Assumptions are made in the abscence of evidence. Predictions are made based on available evidence (be that observations, past experiences, etc.).

But let's move on to Sasquatch. Present your evidence regarding the big hairy pixie what hides in the forest.

An assumption is believed to be true. Weather is a prediction framed within probabilities. They don't assume anything. They say, "based on the evidence we see, this seems a likely outcome, but it is not certain".

This is splitting hairs. The scientists look at weather patterns and other data and they predict that the combination of all this data will result in a particular combination to result in certain weather conditions.

But they are wrong so much of the time. So maybe we just need to take a step back in the process and look at when they analyzed the evidence. Maybe they observed factor A combine with factor B and concluded that it would result in condition C. They were assuming that this would give a consistent result, when in fact it depends on factor D.

Just look at how wrong they are a good percentage of the time. And they don't even agree with each other! I can watch on station and they predict one thing and another station will predict something else. They are using the same evidence that has been provided over time, and they still can't agree. Couldn't it be because they are making different assumptions as to how certain factors will combine?

This is possible. So really, end of discussion.

[TheProwler]

Haha, we disagree.

You describe science and the scientific community how it would be if it were without major flaws. I am saying it isn't like that. You've actually said it isn't like that in previous posts, so it seems you are arguing with yourself. You can't discount the outside influences and the bad scientists, as you've tried to do.

You look at trees, I look at the whole forest.

I am not talking perfection, just assumptions. You are mostly talking results.

Haha! You created the thread. You used the term scientists. If you meant to say "scientific community as a whole, on average" and not "scientists", then you should have. But you didn't.

I'll help you understand using your forest/tree analogy. You didn't ask "Is the forest healthy?" You asked "Is every tree in the forest healthy?" All it takes is one sick tree to change the answer in a very healthy forest.

Now do you see where you went wrong?

We assume the sun will rise tommorrow (except in polar regions during winter, etc.). Why? A. It has for the life of humankind. B. If it does not we won't be around.

You know it's actually the Earth spinning that makes it appear that the sun is rising, right? Haha!

Also, there are top scientists that would argue that the Earth has experienced polar shifts during the life of humankind. And at least some of those shifts have caused extending periods of darkness/light in different regions of the world. So your answer is flawed.

The Earth's magnetic poles have shifted, and I believe there have been minor shifts in the tilt. However, none of that negates what I said. For one thing... did you notice the "etc".

Most of what you call assumptions fall in that category. It gets rather reduntant to say over and over "a pear will mature in roughly x days providing there is no tidal wave, hurricane, a vandal with a chainsaw, a major disease to hit the pear tree, the sun does not explode, it is on Earth, in our universe, within human time frame.....etc, etc. etc." Saying "pears tend to mature in x days" is sufficient.

But again, from a scientific perspective, those things are understood to be limitations.

Haha!! Who would have thought that your "etc." included pole shifts?? So what else would you have included in "etc."? Anything that proves your answer wrong?

You said the "It has for the life of humankind" and I've told you that some scientists would disagree. That certainly negates your answer.

It appears you are once again arguing that scientists do not make assumptions. Before you were saying that they do. Are you showing flexibility in your thoughts and ideas, or are you just confused?

BTW, further examples are not needed. It is irrelevant to show examples of when scientists do not make assumptions. Nobody said each and every scientist makes assumptions each and every time they make conclusions.

But, you raised the pear issue so I will deal with that, even though it is unnecessary. Saying "pears tend to mature in x days" is correct because it allows for exceptions. Unfortunately, you normally say things like "all pears mature in x days". I'm trying to help you here. You make absolute statements and then when it is demonstrated that you are wrong, you say "semantics". The kind of stubbornness that you display is a character trait that makes some scientists very poor at what they do.

[StiffMittens]

The problem here, Player, may be that the debate is framed in a flawed way. Because if one wants to argue purely in terms of sophistry and semantics, anything anybody does/has done/will do at anytime throughout all of history and into the future has been/is/will be based on some assumptions. Opening your eyes when you wake up in the morning implies an assumption that you haven't gone blind while you slept. With every breath you take, you're assuming that you haven't been suddenly enveloped by ricin gas. If you had to test the atmosphere before each breath life would become extremely laborious. If you have re-discover the entire universe every moment, you'd never get anything accomplished. So you have to take some things for granted (i.e make assumptions).

But I think I understand your intent with this debate and I agree with your stance. Science is a robust and rational mechanism for examining the universe and helping us all understand it's properties better. It is a system which has been tested, re-tested, and refined over the centuries in an attempt to minimize bias and maximize accuracy. It is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have so far and it's worth it to try and defend it against the rigid thinking ideologues that try to subvert it for their own ends (including those rigid thinking ideologues within the scientific community).

[TheProwler]

The problem here, Player, may be that the debate is framed in a flawed way.

Yup.

Science is a robust and rational mechanism for examining the universe and helping us all understand it's properties better. It is a system which has been tested, re-tested, and refined over the centuries in an attempt to minimize bias and maximize accuracy. It is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have so far and it's worth it to try and defend it against the rigid thinking ideologues that try to subvert it for their own ends (including those rigid thinking ideologues within the scientific community).

I agree with this. I always have.

[StiffMittens]

Just look at how wrong they are a good percentage of the time. And they don't even agree with each other! I can watch on station and they predict one thing and another station will predict something else. They are using the same evidence that has been provided over time, and they still can't agree.

To be absolutely fair, what you are saying is true to an extent. But within my lifetime I have seen the weather reports get noticeably more accurate over the years, Granted this is only my perception and it's not like I was logging all the data and doing an in-depth analysis of my observations, but still from a casual perspective it seems that 30 years ago the weather reports were almost always wrong whereas now they are right much more often and when they're wrong, they're not that far off. I don't know where you and GX are getting your weather reports from, but I've found that weather.com yields some fairly useful predictions. It's also interesting to note that on weather.com if you look at the 10 day forecast every day, the trends they predict change slightly over time (suggesting that they revise their thinking as new observations come to light) and the closer you get to the present day, the more accurate their predictions become. This really doesn't sound like fortune-telling to me. It sounds like observing what happens and making rational, informed guesses as to what happens next in a very chaotic fluid system (not at all an easy thing to do).

[StiffMittens]

ahh, but he put four on the table. Now he has to explain himself four times.

I don't have to do anything!

Aww, please! I want to hear about Sasquatch.

I knew I should have asked that one first.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem here, Player, may be that the debate is framed in a flawed way. Because if one wants to argue purely in terms of sophistry and semantics, anything anybody does/has done/will do at anytime throughout all of history and into the future has been/is/will be based on some assumptions. Opening your eyes when you wake up in the morning implies an assumption that you haven't gone blind while you slept. With every breath you take, you're assuming that you haven't been suddenly enveloped by ricin gas. If you had to test the atmosphere before each breath life would become extremely laborious. If you have re-discover the entire universe every moment, you'd never get anything accomplished. So you have to take some things for granted (i.e make assumptions).

Yes, but those were not the things Prowler mentioned. The things he spoke of were either outright errors or things that are not really assumptions, such as predictions phrased as percentages, etc.

I am not sure that waking really implies you were not blinded in the night. Some people open their eyes and find they are blinded. Breathing.. in a way, yes. However that is an assumption of necessity.

But I think I understand your intent with this debate and I agree with your stance. Science is a robust and rational mechanism for examining the universe and helping us all understand it's properties better. It is a system which has been tested, re-tested, and refined over the centuries in an attempt to minimize bias and maximize accuracy. It is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have so far and it's worth it to try and defend it against the rigid thinking ideologues that try to subvert it for their own ends (including those rigid thinking ideologues within the scientific community).

The point I probably should have made before is that individual scientists can be wrong, do make assumptions, etc. However, then along comes another scientist who tests the assumption. Then, it is either disproven, left as possible or (occasionally) proven. Scientists, as individuals do make assumptions, but science is framed to get around them.

The other type I already mentioned is not so much an assumption as a necessary guess. The problems come when those assumptions are not stated and later individuals might perceive them to be facts. That happens a lot, but more in poorly trained people.

[PLAYER57832]

Haha, we disagree.

You describe science and the scientific community how it would be if it were without major flaws. I am saying it isn't like that. You've actually said it isn't like that in previous posts, so it seems you are arguing with yourself. You can't discount the outside influences and the bad scientists, as you've tried to do.

You look at trees, I look at the whole forest.

I am not talking perfection, just assumptions. You are mostly talking results.

Haha! You created the thread. You used the term scientists. If you meant to say "scientific community as a whole, on average" and not "scientists", then you should have. But you didn't.

I did say specifically Creationists as opposed to scientists.

I'll help you understand using your forest/tree analogy. You didn't ask "Is the forest healthy?" You asked "Is every tree in the forest healthy?" All it takes is one sick tree to change the answer in a very healthy forest.

Now do you see where you went wrong?

That is a completely different question and irrelevant. Again, you look to the details and not the issue at hand.

The point is not that scientists don't make assumptions. The point is that the examples you brought up are mostly not assumptions, never mind not assumptions scientists make. Some are criticisms lodged by Creationists against science as a whole.

Haha!! Who would have thought that your "etc." included pole shifts?? So what else would you have included in "etc."? Anything that proves your answer wrong?

None of those shifts would really have significantly shifted the days and nights. It was the magnetic of the Earth that shifted, along with perhaps minor shifts in the axis. Its not as if the entire Earth flip-flopped.

But, you raised the pear issue so I will deal with that, even though it is unnecessary. Saying "pears tend to mature in x days" is correct because it allows for exceptions. Unfortunately, you normally say things like "all pears mature in x days". I'm trying to help you here. You make absolute statements and then when it is demonstrated that you are wrong, you say "semantics". The kind of stubbornness that you display is a character trait that makes some scientists very poor at what they do.

No, you missed the point entirely. I do not normally say anything like
all pears mature in x days." I would generally say "pears mature in x days", with the qualifications to that statement understood. If I were writing in a textbook, etc. then I would probably be a lot more precise (depending upon the context.. if it were a logic text, I would be VERY VERY precise indeed!).

See, you are making all sorts of assumptions in your speech and thinking. That is the trouble.

[TheProwler]

I did say specifically Creationists as opposed to scientists.

I did say in my first post that I was referring to scientists in general, not as opposed to Creationists.

I'll help you understand using your forest/tree analogy. You didn't ask "Is the forest healthy?" You asked "Is every tree in the forest healthy?" All it takes is one sick tree to change the answer in a very healthy forest.

Now do you see where you went wrong?

That is a completely different question and irrelevant. Again, you look to the details and not the issue at hand.

The point is not that scientists don't make assumptions. The point is that the examples you brought up are mostly not assumptions, never mind not assumptions scientists make. Some are criticisms lodged by Creationists against science as a whole.

No, the point is that if even a few scientists makes assumptions, then the statement "scientists make assumptions" is true. I had hoped you would have understood the "every tree versus forest" analogy.

Haha!! Who would have thought that your "etc." included pole shifts?? So what else would you have included in "etc."? Anything that proves your answer wrong?

None of those shifts would really have significantly shifted the days and nights. It was the magnetic of the Earth that shifted, along with perhaps minor shifts in the axis. Its not as if the entire Earth flip-flopped.

You are missing the point. You were talking about "the sun rising" the next day. During a pole shift, the crust of the Earth can break away from the mantle (due to inertia) and it can actually result in the sun not "rising" the next day. Even if the crust doesn't break away from the mantle, the Earth will change its rotation and that change could result in the sun not "rising" the next day. Of course, when everything settles down and friction causes all the layers to spin together again, we are back to regular days and nights. Of course, I'm just basing this on what scientists say. Haha!

What is very strange here, is that initially you claimed you had pole shifts covered: "didn't you see the 'etc.'?" And now you are stepping back and arguing that you didn't need the 'etc.'. You should try to sort the issues out in your mind before arguing them.

But, you raised the pear issue so I will deal with that, even though it is unnecessary. Saying "pears tend to mature in x days" is correct because it allows for exceptions. Unfortunately, you normally say things like "all pears mature in x days". I'm trying to help you here. You make absolute statements and then when it is demonstrated that you are wrong, you say "semantics". The kind of stubbornness that you display is a character trait that makes some scientists very poor at what they do.

No, you missed the point entirely. I do not normally say anything like
all pears mature in x days." I would generally say "pears mature in x days", with the qualifications to that statement understood. If I were writing in a textbook, etc. then I would probably be a lot more precise (depending upon the context.. if it were a logic text, I would be VERY VERY precise indeed!).

See, you are making all sorts of assumptions in your speech and thinking. That is the trouble.

Haha, nope. You assumed I missed the point.

But you reinforced my point. You admit that you would say "pears mature in x days". I am telling you that your language is too absolute. You would be better off saying "pears mature in x days on average" or "pears tend to mature in x days" or "pears normally mature in y-z days". But saying "pears mature in x days" leaves no room for x-1 days or x+1 days or any other number of days. As long as one pear matures in a time frame other than "x days", your statement is wrong.

Really, for someone who nitpicks semantics whenever you feel the urge, you seem to want to be given a lot of leeway in the meaning of things that you say.

[GabonX]

ahh, but he put four on the table. Now he has to explain himself four times.

I don't have to do anything!

Aww, please! I want to hear about Sasquatch.

I knew I should have asked that one first.

Now why would I want to convince you that it exists, thereby making you my new competition..

We'll talk when I catch one

[StiffMittens]

ahh, but he put four on the table. Now he has to explain himself four times.

I don't have to do anything!

Aww, please! I want to hear about Sasquatch.

I knew I should have asked that one first.

Now why would I want to convince you that it exists, thereby making you my new competition..

We'll talk when I catch one

How do you know that I am not a sasquatch?

[Napoleon Ier]

Usually, scientists do not "prove" previous scientists "wrong". They show that the previous "explanation" only dealt with a subset of reality. Newtonian physics is not invalidate by Einsteinian. It is just shown to apply only in certain cases (What most of us would think of as common sense cases, the world we normally perceive with our senses).

Debatable. That's one view of the role of Physics, but the vast majority of physicists are Platonists who believe in a objective standard of reality which ultimately we should be describing, even if at the moment, the best we have is this rather uncomfortable superimposition of various theories that only describe certain empirically observable phenomena.