The tools of science

I would like to focus this OP on the tools of science. I am not interested in the theories here I am interested in the credibility of the tools which scientists use and why results from using these tools should be considered reliable. Many of you will already know I am coming from a position of extreme scepticism of the usefulness of science at any great distance in time and space and I want you to try and show me that trustworthy conclusions can be drawn from using scientific tools to assess fossils in deep time and objects in deep space for instance.

Ironically, observing fossil evidence and observing deep space are very similar since looking into space is looking back in time because of the limitation of the speed of light.

The assumption that science uses to infer correctness of observations in deep space and time is that the laws of physics are the same in the past and at a distance. It really is as simple as that. There is huge evidence this assumption is correct, and zero evidence it is not.

A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.

Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.

While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important to ensure that this tendency does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study. After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.

Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (traditionally known as "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

So I want to focus the discussion on two areas in particular
1) Origins
2) Remote cosmology

So

1) In case of our origins which tools can scientists draw reliable conclusions from?
2) In case of remote cosmology which tools can scientists draw reliable conclusions from?
3) Briefly describe how the tools used to assess our origins are used and why the results they glean can be significant.
4) Briefly describe how the tools used to analyse remote cosmology are used and why the results they glean can be significant.
5) Finally give me a good reason why I should trust a result of some analysis made by one of these tools for origins.
6) Finally give me a good reason why I should trust a result of some analysis made by one of these tools for remote cosmology.

Assumption based on unproven assumption about light speed.

I am more interested in the tools you would actually use to examine deep space e.g. a telescope or fossils e.g. a microscope and why you think it is a reliable way to find things out about deep space or fossils.



Again unproven assumption and irrelevant to this OP. What tools could you use to try and show me that there is a match between sub atomic reality and that which we imperfectly observe in deep space through the filter of our solar system.

1) Tools for origins (assuming you mean the origins of our or other species): geographical distribution of species, morphological comparison of species, fossils and genetics. The actual operations involved would include collecting living specimens from around the world, digging up fossils, collecting samples of nearby strata and doing involved nuclear chemistry on them, and sequencing genes or genomes of living or ancient specimans.

2) Depends on what you mean by "deep cosmology". The basic tools for all astronomy are telescopes, in wavelengths ranging from radio waves to gamma rays. Basic facts that inform cosmology include the existence of distant galaxies that look much like ours, cosmological red shift that increases with distance, the match between the predictions of General Relativity and observation, the existence of a microwave cosmic ray background, the extreme uniformity of that background and its near-perfect black body spectrum.

3 & 4) That's not really possible. A brief description like the one you're asking for will run to hundreds of pages, assuming most of the technical stuff is left out; you cannot summarize entire fields of science in a forum post. What makes science work, and what makes science's results reliable, is the interconnecting web of support that different pieces of evidence give. Any brief description necessarily leaves out most of the evidence. So what you really need to do is go to a library and pick up a book and start reading -- and then pick up another one, and keep going from there.

I think the best one can do in a forum like this is pick some particular conclusion about the past and try probing it to see what kind of supporting evidence there is for it. For the subject of origins, I suggest this, mostly because I wrote it. It discusses one piece of evidence for shared ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, and might give you an idea of how scientists accumulate evidence for a hypothesis about the past. Read it and start asking questions about how we got the information in it. There are many other pieces of evidence already posted on the web, both in biology and in astronomy, so you could pick any one of those instead.

For astronomy, for example, you might look at the evidence from Supernova 1987a, which shows that nuclear physics behaved 160,000 years ago in the same way it does today, and that the speed of light has not changed (much) in that time.

Please be more specific. What do you think is unproven?

I think I need further clarification.

At what distance do you consider something "Deep space"?

Deep space is that area of unexplored space of which we have no direct travel experience by robotic or manned craft outside the more easily observable zones of our solar system.

Quite simply we do not know much about this zone nor about how light travels through it for example. For all we know once light leaves the immediate vicinity of its star it may simply jump to the next star with no time lapse or apparent distortion. Can anyone prove otherwise?

Apparently if you pointed the Hubble Telescope at the moon you would not be able to observe the Apollo landing module or the flag planted on the moon cause these things are just too small. If we cannot even observe objects of this significance at such a close distance what hope of we observing correctly what is going on in deep space. We miss too many details to be sure of much at all.

The appearance of a thing like a stick that appears bent in water may be very different from the reality.