In any scientific field where absolute proofs are elusive, a scientist (if he’s any good) will form an opinion based on the available information and he will tend to interpret new information in the context of what he has already come to believe. But, if the new evidence is sufficently contrary, he will reevaluate his opinion.
For example, Stephen Hawking came to believe that black holes were such unique and powerful objects that they are able to violate one of the fundamental laws of physics (the conservation of information). For many years, Hawking’s opinion was accepted by a large majority of physicists who interpreted cosmological data through that lens. However, Lenny Susskind disagreed and fought against Hawking’s idea for 28 years (known as “the Black Hole War”). Finally Hawking conceded that he had been wrong and accepted Susskind’s opinion, and today nobody believes what Hawking once taught.
Good scientists form opinions but are open to other ideas.
