No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times no. This is not how science works. If you have a theory, you have to bring me the proof that your theory works. I don't have to do out and disprove your idea.
Honestly, I do remember reading that from you before, and I remember completely agreeing with you...but in reality the meaning has probably flown over my head because now I'm a bit confused...
.
The meaning of the statement is relatively straightforward. That when someone comes up with an idea, it is the job of the supporters to find the evidence that supports their theory. It is not the job of the people who don't believe it to disprove the theory. Now, in a few special cases, it may end up working like that, but those are rare and far between.
Let me give you a few examples. This Loch Ness thread is a good start. Nessie has never been seen. At least not by anything reliable. So, the logical conclusion is that she doesn't exist. If someone wants to argue that she does exist, they need to bring conclusive evidence to the table. Without evidence, science has to go on logics and what evidence there is. All the reliable evidence to date shows that she doesn't exist. Could science be wrong? You betcha! But one of the things scientists do is process all of the information available and make the most sound (best supported by evidence) conclusion.
Let me give you an example from physics and cosmology. There are a small group of people who believe that the Universe is inherently electric. That the sun's core is iron, that comets carry charge, that deep space plasma is the universe's equivalent to our copper wire. And, here's the kicker, if you just take a cursory look at the ideas, they kind of make sense. But, science takes a deeper look and finds that is just isn't true. There are pretty good estimates of what the sun is made of -- the sun has quakes just like on earth, and considering how the earth and the other planets move around her, we have a good idea of her mass. Actual experiments done on comets has shown no significant charge. A big one is that the mathematics from assuming an electric universe just don't predict what is observed. So, science rejects that proposal, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of its supporters.
As another example from physics, there have been no less than 5 "string theories" offered up in the literature. Which one is right? Are any of them right? This is a case where there is some disproving going on -- because the physicists work through the mathematics of each of the 5 models and look for inconsistencies or errors in them. But, the reason 5 exist is that they all do an equally decent job at prediction. But, all 5 cannot be right since they aren't the same. In fact, string theory itself may not be right.
Here is an example that is pretty much unresolved. Does having a death penalty act as a crime deterrent? There is evidence on both sides of this story. Some, like two neighboring states with similar population makes up (racially and wealth-wise), one state with the death penalty, one without, show no difference. But, some states with the death penalty show a significant decrease in crime. This is one where there is evidence on both sides, and really, both sides need to keep gathering evidence to support their beliefs. What are the other possible reasons the crime rate was lower in that last state I mentioned? What kind of crimes were the death penalty being applied to in the first two states? Are the criminals really thinking "I would want to kill that other person, but if I get caught, they'll probably kill me too"? A significant number of murders are crimes of passion, i.e. you come home to find your wife in bed with the mailman and you kill them both. During that passion, you aren't thinking about anything at all except revenge. Like I said at the beginning of this paragraph, this one is pretty much unresolved.
As a final example, I'll come back to fishkeeping. It has long been thought that ich has a dormant stage. After all, there was evidence to believe it was so. Well-maintained fishtanks, that were ich free for months would suddenly get an outbreak again, with no warning. Many books and magazines warn that ich can be dormant and that all fish are carriers so ich can pop up at any time (so be prepared). Or, ich is in pretty much all water. Well, it turnout that was "utter rubbish" in the words of Peter Burgess. Burgess did his PhD thesis work studying ich. He, and several other researchers have studied many different strains of ich, and never once found a dormant stage. There was ich that doesn't break off of the fish's body, ich that can survive above 95 degrees F, ich that is resistant to a lot of medication, but all of the ich never once had a dormant stage. Part of the confusion causing the original thinking was two fold: Firstly, marine keepers deal with a parasite similar to ich called crypto that does indeed have a dormant stage. So, a little confusion or blurring between the two may have lead to some people just assuming because the marine ich-like parasite has a dormant stage, so does ich. But, the real source was the people who only medicated long enough for the spots to come off. If only medicate for 3 days, you decimate ich's population. 99% or more probably die. But, if you let even one ich live, the population has a chance to grow back, and that takes time. The fish can be asymptomatic carriers for a long time before showing spots, and then several months after the last outbreak, it's back. And it seemed like it went into a dormant phase. Or, a new fish that wasn't quarantined long enough could have been the carrier, even though the new fish was introduced several months prior. The newer evidence shows that the old evidence was mistaken. Could ich actually have a dormant phase? It certainly could, but as far as I know one has never been identified in the scientific literature.
------------------------------------
Here is a big reason why supporters have to bring evidence to the table. Because, what they are in effect saying is "I didn't being any proof, but you can't disprove me either, so let's pick my theory as right." Out of
all the possible theories that can't be disproved, why should we pick yours? Again, let's use this Loch Ness example: Why does it have to be some sort of animal living there? Maybe it's a ghost dinosaur? (Believe it or not, I've actually heard this theory put forth -- and look at the genius of how unable to be disproved it is -- it's a ghost so you wont be able to find it on radar or via other detection methods) Maybe it's a submarine made by dwarves, or by mole people, or by the molten rock men who live in the core of the earth, or...? Maybe its a secret government military base built to look like an animal to fool people. I could go on. Any of these are equally valid, and all equally unsupported by evidence. Why should any one of these be picked over another? There is no reason, since they are all unsupported by evidence.
If evidence doesn't support your idea, but your idea can't be disproved either, why was your idea so special. Out of all the possible choices, how did you happen to get the one right answer? Especially without evidence? Chances are very, very slim that you happened to guess the one right answer without any evidence to support your idea.
This is why evidence has to be brought forward to support your idea, and people who don't believe you, do not have to disprove you. Science just doesn't work that way. Science works in the way that if you want people to believe your theory, your ideas, you need to bring evidence that shows you are correct to the discussion. Science does not have to entertain every wild notion until they are proved wrong. Science rejects any proposal without evidence until evidence is brought to the table.
.
.
