“Nylon”-Digesting Bacteria are Almost Certainly Not a Modern Strain

Proslogion ^ | 7-12-18 | Jay L. Wyle (earned PhD in nuclear chemistry.)

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "If a scientist encounters evidence disproving his favorite hypothesis, he will experience cognitive dissonance.
In many cases, this will cause him to reject the evidence."

Sure, just as my most recent UFO sighting was rejected for lack of stronger evidence.
Just kidding, the only "UFOs" I've ever seen were at the tip end of contrails, too high to make out what they were:

reasonisfaith: "This is why Bacon said we believe what we prefer to be true, and it’s the reason we use the double blind method"

Right, and a double-blind test can protect a valid theory just as well as it falsifies an invalid one.

Do we disagree?

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "But when I ask whether something is true or not, you know exactly what I mean.
Meaning is what’s important, not the symbols used to convey meaning."

Of course, but we are talking informally, FRiend to FRiend, where words like "true" and "proof" or "belief" are used loosely to express our confidence in an idea.
I'm merely hoping to point out that science, strictly defined, doesn't do that, but sticks to a strict scientific vocabulary which excludes such terms.

Is that a problem for you?

[reasonisfaith]

Sure. If we didn’t use the double blind method, the scientist’s inherent bias would skew the results.

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "If we didn’t use the double blind method, the scientist’s inherent bias would skew the results."

Maybe, but I'd guess 99% of science does happen outside double-blinds and sometimes with just the tiniest shreds of physical evidence.
Think of a CSI type crime investigation, where agents analyze a bit of hair here, some blood there, maybe a bullet, attempting to piece together a case that can stand up in court.
No double-blind and obvious interest in nailing a suspect, is it fake science?

Answer: not if done properly, but nothing humans do is ever 100% perfect, even I dare say, the best of double-blinds.

You disagree?

[reasonisfaith]

No.