Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Scientific method (was COLD FUSION)



Yes, I suggested that Bernard shares these references:

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/Peer_Review%5B1%5D.htm

A resolution[?]:

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/bee_dance_2.htm

with the entire list rather than with me only. The pieces illustrate
that the so-called "scientific method" is often an idealization.
This has already been discussed but repetitions can be useful,
sometimes. In practice the rate of scientific progress depends
on many non-scientific factors. Here is a quote from XXX:

. . . I know that many, indeed most, new discoveries bought
their discovers grief. The more important the discovery, the
more vigorously it was rejected. It is myth taught to young
people that science is an open minded search for truth. We
hope the young will adopt this ideal approach at least long
enough to contribute a discovery or two. Once they make
their contribution, they soon see how the system actually
works. I suppose, that is why new ideas come mostly from
the young, before they know better, or from the old after
they are independent of the system.

The flaw is, of course, in how reward and praise are given.
A skeptic never pays a price for being wrong, but a supporter
of a new idea always has to risk a loss whether he is right or
wrong. A skeptic is always considered a noble protector of
the truth, while a new idea is always considered wrong until
it is proven correct. Fortunately, not everyone reacts this way,
so the human race can actually move ahead, although more
slowly than it otherwise might.

The so-called "cold fusion" is a good illustration; an administrative
decision (outcasting the field) taken 13 years ago is not being
addressed despite hundreds of papers written by highly qualified
scientists. What prevents the DOE (US Department of Energy) from
taking another look into existing data (to either validate the
previous condemnation of the field or to declare that it should
now be treated as "normal" science)? Will they do this in 2003?
Ludwik Kowalski