Hortlund wrote the stuff in bold
In your picture you have shown a very basic model over the scientific method, or an ideal situation if you will. In reality that picture is a lot more complex. For example, it is very rare that two scientists will draw the same conclusion from the same experiment. This is not true when we are talking about "easy" situations or theories, such as gravity for example, but it is very true when we are talking about complex theories, such as...for example, the theory of evolution, or the origins of life. If scientists conduct experiments and disagree, they do MORE experiments to see who is closer to reality. It's not unusual for scientists to disagree with another scientist hypothesis. It's more unusual for a scientists to disagree with theories in his field of work. Not unheard of though and it sometimes leads to the theory either being modified or altered (modern nuclear physics being a prime example).
You say it is 'very rare' for two scientists to draw the same conclusions from the same experiments. This isn't exactly true. Usually, controlled experiments are set up in such a strict way that the result can be shown to be caused by either
presence of something (that which is to be tested for instance) or
absence of it. Poorly set up experiments or areas where experiments are difficult to conduct is another thing, though. Incidentally, the theory of evolution isn't more complicated than, say, physics. It's different in nature though.
For example, maybe I can show that the person defending the theory made an error when he interpreted the results from various experiments, and that the results he claims to be in support of his theory actually inconsistent with the theory. Very true. I tried to keep it short and omitted this. Thanks for bringing it up - it is an important point.
Or maybe I can show that experiments or made are not consistent with the theory, or they are irrelevant. An example of such an irrelevant experiment would be the helium baloon you were talking about earlier. An experiment showing that helium baloons can fly is not really related to the theory of gravity at all. Perhaps you can. In the case of the helium balloon it would not be related to gravity, which is a hypothesis, but to the observation that 'things fall, usually'. But let's not argue over an example that is there just to illustrate a principle.
In my opinion, you are oversimplifying the issue (and I suspect you are doing it to prove a point that will come in a later post of yours). You read ulterior motives where there are none. A detailed discussion of the scientific methodology would span a book or more. I'm trying to keep it simple, yet have enough to build a common ground on. This thread is as much about what science is not as it is about what it is. I've posted because there are major misconceptions about what science is and because people are quick to dismiss scientists who come to conclusions that are not acceptable to them - i.e "you're hiding behind a scientists big words, who's he, it's just his opinion anyway". We've seen that (or similar) claim in almost all discussion where scinetific theories that some people object to are being discussed.
You are right if you think I'll use this as a basis for discussing evolution. All the more important we agree, no?
Here you are talking about apples and oranges. If a new experiment proves the original theory to be wrong, the original theory falls. That is the simple answer to the simplified model you presented in your picture.Err, no. In my last post I was rather direct and explained that even if a piece of evidence was shown to be false, the entire theory doesn't fall - unless it's a crucial piece of evidence. I'll quote myself:
It is worth noting however that the experiment must be linked to the hypothesis. And unless there's more than just one, the existing experiment must be really clear with no other possibilities. It's akin to accumulating evidence. Further, one can discuss say a piece of evidence within a theory and debate whether it is correct or not. If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.
Let's stay away from specific theories at this point - we'll get to them.
Btw Hortlund, din svenskjävel
. Jag hoppas att vi kan ha en civiliserad diskussion. Du har ingen grund för att misstänka mina motiv. Det här forumet har några personer som bara är ute efter att agitera/irritera, men jag är inte en av dem. Av en eller annan grund känner jag, om inte hostilitet så en viss misstänksamhet till/av mig. Vi kanske inte kan nå enighet innanför vissa områden, men det betyder inte att vi skall stå och skrika till varandra
.
That translation says a lot about my mastering of the English language, eh? 
