shalamabobbi writes:
The point of my post is about the existence of belief being operative in most people.
Fine...but that's what you said in post 26. Here it is again, just to remind you.
shalamabobbi in post 26 writes:
I think that many of the
theories of science were believed before there was any evidence, and that the belief is what propelled scientists to devise experiments to find the evidence to support the
theory.
Bold mine
Now, how am I to interpret that in any other way than you thinking that scientists pull theories out of the asses and then conduct experiments to support those theories?
The part where you said "I think that many of the
theories of science were believed before there was any evidence"...seems pretty unambiguous to me. How did I misinterpret that?
shalamabobbi writes:
The point of my post is about the existence of belief being operative in most people.
That's not how it actually works in science. The scientific method is the mechanism that PREVENTS ones on personal biases (i.e. "belief being operative in most people") from influencing experimental design and results.
shalamabobbi writes:
And what was it called before the 'test hypothesis' was put forth?
It could have been called any number of things...a "thought" perhaps. Or maybe an "idea". Who knows. What I do know, is that it was NOT called a theory.
Look, actual scientists do not devise experiments in such a manner to get the results they want. That kind of bullshit would never stand up to scientific scrutiny...peer review. Instead, they put forth testable hypotheses (in the form of a test hypothesis and a null hypothesis)...conduct an experiment...and see which one is supported.