| 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] |
On 8/12/2010 4:21 PM, Jeff Loats wrote:
/snip/ In all of science you can never take any one
paper as solid evidence. You have to look for a preponderance of evidence
pointing in a given direction. Saying that the literature can say anything
makes it sound (to me) like you are disturbed by the messy details of the
trees of science and peer-review instead of looking at the forest and which
way it seems to be growing./snip/
Jeff
Let me propose a definition of what constitutes a scientific paper.
( a modest task well suited to my modest talents)
A scientific paper is a method of describing the means to replicate some
data, from which certain conclusions may have been drawn.
If there is insufficient material to allow replication, then this is not
a scientific but
quite likely a philosophical paper, or scientific journalism of one
kind or another.
If there is sufficient material to do so, and one is able to replicate
the results, then
the paper has passed its first and second stages of verification.
The third stage, of allowing one to endorse the conclusions, is the
most difficult step.
Because it is difficult, there are people who believe they can pass
directly to this stage,
omitting the prior verification. This is akin to asking, "Is this
result plausible?"
Prior experience may well render one's judgment credible - but the
effort then
becomes that of the judge facing opposing counsels, who know their
task is to
sway a jury not to establish facts.
Brian W
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l