[troutman]

Here is a recent example of scientists recently rejecting a prior theory based on new evidence:

Gravity Waves and Science Self-Correction

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...lf-correction/

It was a nice idea that had useful explanatory power. Scientists, however, are not philosophers, theologians, or metaphysicists. It doesn’t matter how pretty, clean, or useful an idea is. They want to know if it is actually correct. Does it make predictions about how reality behaves, predictions that can be confirmed through observation or experiment?

In my encounters with pseudoscientists, cranks, and conspiracy theorists of every stripe I frequently encounter the claim that scientists are closed minded, they are dogmatic, and they protect their pet theories and the status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the scientific community is not monolithic. One scientist’s pet theory may be utter nonsense to another scientist. What these recent examples (and countless others) demonstrate is that, at the end of the day, evidence is king. Different teams of scientists looking at different data came to different conclusions. This demonstrates how the scientific community is a check on its members and provides self-correction. In the end they combined their data and came to a consensus.

We see this played out over and over. Different scientists have different theories, and their task is to convince the broader scientific community with evidence.