Do scientists only test things they believe might exist?

Question

Do they ever test things that they DON'T believe exist?

Answer 1

Of course, that's the hypothesis in the scientific method as in to disprove the existence of ...

The Muse

Answer 2

Sorry they can't test on imagery object.  What is a atom? I can't see it so it can't be real. But I believe my imagery friend Teddy is. because I can see him.

Does that make sense?

Answer 3

I'm certain some of them are willing to take orders just like anyone else.

I'm an engineer, but after a debate, will gladly try something that I don't think will work if my boss tells me to.  It might end up working.  Or, if nothing else, I can prove that it doesn't work.

Answer 4

Sure. Ever hear of James Randi - though he's not a scientist.

Answer 5

Sometimes, depending on if the thing they think does not exist is testable.  That's the catch to science though isn't it?  If it can be detected by a machine or through the scientific method, it's real - but only through popular science opinion, which is scientific peer review.  No observation, no machine-measuring, no pattern, and no peer review, and it does not exist in the scientific books.

Some of them jump to conclusions, leaving out the hypothesis and experiment parts of the scientific method, and they don't want to come to a point where they could be wrong, to have to adjust their claims.  They give up too early and follow the herd, just like ordinary people.

Answer 6

It seems to me that the scientists don't bother testing

stuff they already know about, since that would be a

waste of time.

Most of the stuff they do is to 'expand the database

of existing knowledge'.

It doesn't mean they are looking for things that don't

exist, it means they are trying to 'fill in the blanks'

about ideas that have already been put forth.

Answer 7

Yes, but they would have to modify their hypothesis. Instead of it being, "I believe that if I do this, then this will happen", it would be, "I believe that if I do this, nothing out of the ordinary will happen".

Of course, scientists are often surprised by their results. It may be the opposite of their hypothesis.

Answer 8

Scientist test things that have the possibility of existing and some logic to it. Their is no evidence dark matter and one dimensional string building blocks exist. But they go well with mathemactical Physics equations if you study String thermodynamics which I have looked into. But all scientist think different. Some scientist are more intuitive then others. they are willing to explore in forbidden fields.

Great answer " T R" I agree with everything you said there, yes this is how science works.

Answer 9

It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative.  Let's hypothesize Galileo believed in gamma rays, and set up experiments to find them.  Unfortunately, no technology in Galileo's time could detect them.  He could run any number of experiments at any location and not come up with a single shred of evidence for the existence of gamma rays.  Oblivously, that doesn't mean gamma rays don't exist.  He just didn't have the correct tools to discover them.  So let's say I don't believe in gravitons.  I design an experiment to detect them.  I don't find them.  My effort is completely wasted.  My inability to detect them does not mean they don't exist.

Answer 10

What would be the point?

Example:  I don't believe in pink faries on Mars.  What would possibly be the point of spending time and money to chase this improbable theory?

Answer 11

Scientists can only perform experiments for things they believe might exist. Experiments are designed to give a result - a known result - whatever you put into it, you should get something out of it, right? That is why they create hypothesis and design an experiment that would provide an answer for it. If they performed experiments on something they don't believe would exist...how would they know if they had a conclusive result if they do not even know what the answer was that they were looking for?

Answer 12

Thanks Deenie for an interesting and relevant question, I starred it. Well, speaking as someone who makes his living as a scientist...

Testing takes time and money, and resources are always tight. If I need to do some experimenting to find an answer, I'm going to employee Occam's Razor to help prioritize my experimental design. That is, I'm not going to jump to the most outlandish hypothesis and test that first. Rather, I'm going to start testing the hypotheses that seem the most likely, and then work down from there.

A scientist keeps an open mind about the experiment. He neither goes in being convinced the hypothesis is false nor that the hypothesis is correct, but only that there is a possibility it could be right. If a scientist has absolutely no belief that a certain hypothesis has any validity, chances are that he'll never test it simply because there's limited time and resources and he's not interested in going on wild goose chases, or having to explain it to his colleagues :) On the other hand, there is great value in falsifying hypotheses that may be true, because that helps you pare away at the problem and home in on what the kernel of "truth" is.

To be real specific to what I think you're asking, will a scientist test something that is considered paranormal, especially if he has no belief in it?  Well, in almost all scientific areas of investigation I can't imagine the paranormal ever being an area of investigation anywhere near as likely to yield scientific, testable answers as more natural explanations (just from the issue of falsifiability), so I say it's probably unlikely just from the Occam's Razor point of view. However it may be more likely in psychology than in the physical sciences, I would think. Also, I should mention that there are some scientists who do set out to try to explore the paranormal as their main point of investigation. There's not many of them, though.