Re: [Phys-l] Sample problems and derivations...

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

 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