Quote:Furthermore, it seems to me that in certain matters there is a tendency to manipulate facts to suit theories as opposed to manipulating theories to suit facts.
You'll have to be a bit more specific on this, cuz I really haven't heard anything like that happening and holding up for very long. Scientific pursuits are a very large field and you have to realize that people have to follow the procedures to continue to advance the field; if you are working off of a faulty procedure, you're not going to advance anything. If the foundations are flawed, the structure collapses. It would behoove nobody in the scientific community to lie and manipulate data for something as major as information on the Standard Model because beyond that, all information would be faulty and would result in little if any progress, and someone will point it out sooner rather than later. And you're talking about HUNDREDS of scientists on this project, ALL of them keeping silent about this manipulation? We begin to get into conspiracy theory at that point and general silliness. Science works because it is a field of constant peer evaluation. Either you are right, or you are wrong; and everybody else will prove it either way. There is just as much to be gained from disproving as proving. Don't mistake science for religion: Chanting "we are right" just because we want it to be so is not how science has accelerated human understanding; it did it by saying "I might be right!" "Nope, sorry, you're wrong, here, here, and here. Oh, and here, too." "Shit, alright, let's see if THIS works..." "Yup, THAT works but that still doesn't." "Then let's fix this, and that will alter that as well, too." "Eureka!"
