1. look at data 2. form hypothesis with associated way of testing it (demonstrating it false) 3. perform tests, see if hypothesis stands up

The argument I guess is whether in this example, the "finding evidence" stage would ever have ever shown the hypothesis wrong. I guess it would have, but if there's a criticism maybe a negative result wouldn't have gotten press?

Using the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis. If the testing shows your hypothesis to be incorrect, you throw it out.

Eh. In principle, ideally, but in practice this is how it works most of the time.

It makes the idea less likely to be true, but sufficient evidence can easily overcome that.

Ideas give you hints where to look for evidence. Ideas don't come from nothing of course, they come from first principles or from circumstantial evidence that you happened to observe, but in a large and chaotic system you need to know where to look (or in most systems, this is true for most of natural science).

I was more thinking, who writes a headline where an idea is suddenly sentient and goes out and finds evidence for itself? Oh, the same person who assures me how bewildering the synoptic-scale wave thing is, twice, and uses enough words doing it, that they could've just defined it.

> Idea finds evidence in its favor[...] Shouldn't conclusions be drawn from all evidence?

Actually, idea finds new evidence. It was already drawn from evidence (I don't know how solid), and now it has more evidence.