> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later.
People love to point to underdog scientists who were later "vindicated" and then compare their own pet theories to them. 1) That's incredibly arrogant. 2) That disregards the 10^n other theories that are discredited correctly every day. 3) The scientists who "nobody believed" were right because they did an incredible amount of very careful, thorough research which bolstered their case well past the point where it could be ignored. They weren't wild hunches.
However, this requires actually looking at the data and the conclusions drawn from them and not just the conclusions. In many cases, this is not done at the beginning.
When the probability describes the likelihood of our data matching a particular theory, there is only "seems improbable". E.g. it seems improbable that there are other yet undetected Pluto-sized objects in the solar system. Is it improbable? No, it's either true that there are such objects or not.
As opposed to events that have not occurred. E.g. it seems improbable that ten flips of a fair coin will yield ten heads. Is it improbable? Yes by most definitions of improbable, it is improbable.
People love to point to underdog scientists who were later "vindicated" and then compare their own pet theories to them. 1) That's incredibly arrogant. 2) That disregards the 10^n other theories that are discredited correctly every day. 3) The scientists who "nobody believed" were right because they did an incredible amount of very careful, thorough research which bolstered their case well past the point where it could be ignored. They weren't wild hunches.
> published by the New Yorker
New York Magazine. Big difference there.