100% could agree with a theory and it still wouldn't make that theory true. The validity of any theory is its accurately describing natural events, their causes and their results. If a million scientists got together and agreed that if a ball was dropped, the ball would fly away from earth's surface. The ball would still fall to earth.

Man cannot change physics. He can only adapt to those natural acts.

As Albert Einstein stated, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

And aren't you glad that the laws of Physics are not subject to vote. Just look what a mess voting has done for just the rulers of countries. Could you imagine if we lived in Al Gore's or Jimmy Hanson's world. One day you could weigh 200 lbs. and the next 50 lbs., depending on his whim. Jimmy Hanson, with just the stroke of a pen, made 2010 the hottest year on record, surpassing the long established 1934. If we lived in Mann's world, the earth would be ten degrees hotter.

Just be glad no man can control the laws of Physics.

Science is nowhere near that simple, friend. A majority's consensus doesn't make a theory any more true than an obscurely espoused theory. As per the radical epistemology of maintaining objectivity, nothing is held to be true 100% of the time or as an absolute. There's always an exception to every established "fact." Over 40% of the so-called science of the 50's and 60's has proved to be false. Freon isn't the cause of our thinning ozone layer. The human brain actually can replace it's neurons and is far more flexible and adaptive than earlier neurologists believed. Very often the "pop culture science" of the day that's touted by everyone in the "in crowd" turns out in the end to have been only a farcical exercise in self-aggrandizement and/or simplistic bid for generous grain money.

Check out the Maunder Minimum. It may surprise you.

Contrary to what you've been led to believe, there is no quota of scientists required t "make a theory true." Scientists are convinced when the EVIDENCE shows a theory accurateley describes the phenomena being studied.

There is no percentage -- only facts. Scientific facts are not decided by opinion -- unless you are a radical conservative. But opinions don't make one right. Only facts.

It is not about "well, we like this idea so let's accept it", but on how well supported it is, does the evidence back it up, can the evidence be interpreted in a different way, etc. The fact that 90% of scientists think that global warming is real only demonstrate that the evidence is such that it convinced 90% of the community, and it is entirely possible that evidence to the contrary opinion may latter convince them otherwise.

It is completely irrelevant how many scientists agree on something to make a theory true. A theory is never "true" or certainly shouldn't be assumed to be true.

Gravity is a theory? That's news to me. I have no idea what gravity is and would look skeptically at some ignoramus that claimed to know. Just because you fall on your *** doesn't mean you understand why. Just because the Earth warms doesn't mean you understand that either.

The term "opinion", the way i use it, shouldn't really come up in a discussion about science.

True science is objective, opinion is subjective. they are almost definitions for these words, which are antonyms of one another

that said, theories are hypotheses that have been valid in ~100% of results of dozens/hundreds of experiments . Many scientists don't live to see their original hypotheses become theories

The amount of scientists accepting a scientific theory does not make it true. however, scientists who work in the field have a whole lot more knowledge on debating if a theory is based on reality or not.

If a theory is true then it is no longer a theory but a fact. When a theory is proven without a shadow of a doubt to be correct according to science, it becomes a fact.

Along with "proof" not being part of science, neither is truth. Truth is subjective (i.e.,religious divine truth). Science only deals with objective knowledge.

Since the consensus of scientists opinion is a reflection of the consensus of the scientific evidence, it depends on the strength of the evidence, I guess. As was the case with AGW - most scientists (real skeptics) were originally skeptical. Their consensus formed only after the empirical and scientific evidence became overwhelming.

Read "The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World" by David Deutsch. A reasonably approximate, tentative answer is presented there.

So often we hear that 90% of scientists believe global warming is real, so that proves the theory. What percentage of scientist is the threshold to move a theory from not true to true? Is it 51% of all scientists? Maybe 75% of a select group of scientists? I was taught that it doesn't matter how many scientists believe something is real, it just takes one with the right answer.

Having "infinite intelligence" on any "idea" is well beyond science's conceivable intellect. A simple "sprinkle" outside could be considered "rain" to most climate scientists, therefore the "consensus" would be that it is raining so why do some call it a sprinkle?

Being part of a "consensus" in any scientific endeavor on an idea is simple "ELITISM" at its finest.

It doesn't matter, like you say.

The truth is the truth, whatever anyone says.

But as a layman, if I have to bet, I'll bet with the 97%.

I'd believe one scientist over a scientific illiterate like you

"Consensus" is politics --- not science. Theories are true or not true without regard to how many scientists support them.

And the 97% claim is pure fiction.

Read the history of the 97% claim in this best answer: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

-----------------------

The evidence is what proves a hypothesis to be correct.

After that, it is willfully perverse to not accept it.

a scientific theory is based on facts