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: [Phys-l] Science, verification and proving




*** (1) Antii's question about "proof" (see below) was not answered. The mathematical term "proof," in my opinion, refers only to a display of "logical consistency." Unfortunately, many people also used it for laboratory data confirming claims made by physical scientists. In such cases I prefer the term "experimental evidence."

*** (2) Let me also share a comment that I posted this morning on another website:

You wrote: "Don't confuse the pharmaceutical industry with other branches of science. Those creating drugs for profit have a strong motive to fudge data. That is very far from real science. Real science is much more open when it comes to debating new ideas. Most new scientific discoveries or theories are subject to rigorous peer review. Claiming that "scientists just do whatever the heck they want" shows a profound misunderstanding of science and the scientific method as it is practiced worldwide."

This is a very important observation; it calls for a clarification of the concept "scientist." Most often this term is used to describe a person preoccupied with an investigation in the physical world. That seems to be too broad. I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything from other scientists."

Here is one example. A claim was made, about a year ago, that a desirable energy-producing device was invented in Italy. About a mounth ago a prototype was actually demonstrated at Bolognia University. The inventor, Andrea Rossi, did not answer the question about the catalyst mixed with the nickel powder inside his cylinder. One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that Rossi is a scientist.

How would secrecy be justified by Rossi? He would probably refer to undesirable competition, or to possible future difficulties with patenting the device. I understand this. Secrecy is OK, but only up to the time at which the invention is publicly announced. A true scientist would not prevent my colleague from turning the instrument on; a true scientist would provide information about the chemical composition of the powder. He might be a good engineer but he is no longer a scientist, by my definition.

P.S.

Those interested in details will find them at:

http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/


= = = = = = = = = = = ========================================================================

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:37 PM, ludwik kowalski wrote:

On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Savinainen Antti wrote:

Hi,

I had recently a discussion on science and physics with a teacher who apparently had no background in science. He said that you should never say "science has proven that...". I proposed that one could talk about verification of predictions of a theory. In physics this means that an experimental result matches with the theoretical prediction within uncertainty limits. However, one might argue that the theory itself was not proven whereas one could say that theory is validated by experimental evidence. The concept of proof would in this scenario be reserved to mathematics and logic.

The method of validation of claims in science is not the same as in mathematics. The source of a claim (theory, guess, intuition, guess, etc.) does not count.

1) In mathematics claims are validated by logical consistency with what has already been accepted.

2) In physics claims are validated by new experimental or observational data, as described by Antti

... So...what do you think about science, verification and proof?

I agree with you, and with those who replied earlier.