Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

Hi John, I hope you don't mind me butting in:I think the above paragraph may be in error because there seems to be no role in prediction in depiction of science.Permit me to re write it in another way: What you are describing misses out the formulation of the hypothesis.

But, but, but.....that's part of how science works! When we have a hypothesis we try and bend it till it breaks. We do all we can to accept the null hypothesis. If we can't we conclude that we are most likely right but we are always aware that we could be wrong: you know that science is tenative, don't you?Running a powerplant is not research, is it?

You don't think the repeated observed accuracy of the predictions is confirmation?When you test something are you not making an observation?Edited by Larni, : Spellink

Sorry, I guess was not clear:RUNNING A POWERPLANT IS NOT RESEARCH, IS IT?What you described were disasters, not research. What is your point?

'Doing their job' would have been being professional in their role as nuclear technicians.Nothing to do with conducting scientific research.When I'm conducting and recording interviews (and and transcribing -don't forget bloody transcribing!!!!) then coding and analysing the information, that is scientific research.When I'm doing therapy I'm doing therapy, not science.Do you see the difference?

So you are saying that true scientist can prove how gravity works?Could you support your assertation that scientist have proved how it works?Bet you can't.You should already be able to see the error you have made.