kristalris Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 CORRECT SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE IN SCIENCE ESPECIALLY PHYSICS After consulting Swansont to start a new thread for continuation of the following discussion, which I believe then belongs in this forum. Bignose in # 148 in a Speculations thread started by Przemyslaw.Gruchalahttp: //www.scienceforums.net/topic/71746-ultimate-theory-of-the-universe-how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles/page-8 I copy pasted the post that I wanted to react to, because it was coming of topic in that thread. Posted Yesterday, 07:29 PM kristalris, on 20 Jan 2013 - 10:56, said: Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure. Cannot disagree more.Correct scientific procedure judges ideas almost wholly on how useful they are. And almost always usefulness is defined as how well predictions made by the idea agree with actual measured values.All that stuff about confirmation bias carries weight in the softer sciences, but in physics it is hard to get away with it. If I report that I put 10 g of deuterium with 20 g of polonium in a steel bomb calorimeter, and in 5 minutes I see a temperature rise from 25.0 to 25.5 degrees C.... that is what gets reported. Now, I may call that cold fusion, the energy of the two atoms mating, or whatever I want. But, the most important thing is that it is repeatable.This is what destroys all your confirmation bias issues.See the example of Pons and Fleishmann, claiming to have demonstrated cold fusion in their lab. But once their experimental setup was published, no one could replicate it. And their idea was shown to be wrong.Look, if you want to call confirmation bias the way the data is interpreted... fine, whatever. I actually really don't care about that.My main argument is that you cannot just ignore the data itself. E.g. Breidenbach's experiment wherein a proton is bombarded with electrons, and the electrons scatter exactly as if there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton. Whatever you want to call those 3 bodies, I don't really care. But, you can't show up and claim that a proton is made up of 1001 bodies, or have positron halos in them, (both actual claims made on this forum some time back) without showing how the 1001 bodies or the halos would lead to 3 point-like bodies scattering electrons. The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact.Well, once that fact was reported, and verified many times, people naturally became curious as to what they are, and worked on other ways of finding out information about them. But, the fact that they are there has never changed. So, for anyone to claim differently just shows an utter lack of research and understanding of the base of knowledge we currently have.And there is no confirmation bias in seeing the number 3 in '3 point-like bodies'. The math is there. You can do the math yourself and see how the data from the experiment show that there are 3 bodies.So, while I understand your point about possible confirmation biases, I don't think it applies nearly as often as you think it does in physics and chemistry, etc. Papers in these fields are required to publish many details about their experiment and how they gathered data and how they manipulated the data to get results. If the papers don't have this info, they don't get published. And that info is required so that others can exactly replicate the experiment described in the paper. The result is hard facts, no matter how they get interpreted or biased or anything else after that. There is still another data point out there that any future improvement will have to be able to hit.So, when you get an idea posted here, for example, that claims the particle of light have substantial mass... it ignores all the current data points we have created when doing experiments with light. Unless you are prepared to say (and back up) that every experimental result published with light has been done incorrectly or falsified in some way, I don't know how this isn't a major problem in the idea. I mean, this is like the stake through the vampire's heart. I would certainly hope that there isn't a single reasonable organization that would spend money on further developing an idea that makes claims so opposed to so many facts that we know to be true at this time -- and there hasn't been anything compelling so far.Look, again, in a big picture, there is something missing. There are improvements to the current model. And, yes, that improvement may be a major revolution of what we call the current model. But, that improvement is still wholly constrained by the published facts of today. Such as when we do experiments A, B, C, ..., X, Y, and Z, photons are massless. That improvement will still agree with all those experimental results. That improvement may show that we were only testing certain conditions, but that improvement will also demonstrate that under those conditions the expected results are exactly what we measured.This is what happened when the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified. They were thought to be separate because each was tested under different set of circumstances. But the unification shows how the electroweak force acts under different conditions.And don't think that that wasn't huge for physics. The fact that two forces initially thought to be so very different from one another could be unified, is huge. It required a lot of re-thinking and re-evaluation of the known results. Note... re-evaluation of results, NOT tossing them away. And it is the reason it is suspected that all 4 forces could one day be unified. But, once again, that future unification will not toss away all the results of today. That future unification will show how when you test it under certain conditions, it acts like gravity, then when you test it under a different set of conditions, it acts like the weak force, etc.I hope all of the above helps convince you that it isn't 'incorrect scientific procedure' but is in fact exactly correct. Old experiments may get re-interpreted in terms of new ideas, but the actual results of those experiments do not change. And those old results still have to be met by any new and improved idea that comes along.So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results. So far, it has failed miserably, and therefore fails that very first test of usefulness in terms of making predictions that conform to known reality. It is really, truly, as simple as that. I don't care if his idea has 2 particles, or 20,000 particles, or has the wishing of polka-dotted unicorns as its basis --- it has to make spot-on predictions. Period. End of story. Poor or no predictions? Not interested from a scientific perspective. Makes thousands of predictions very accurately? Very interested.There is no other judgement that matters. THAT is science. Edited by Bignose, Yesterday, 07:38 PM. EVIDENCE & PROOF in SCIENCE and PHYSICS In part repeating, correcting and elaborating on what I stated in this respect in another thread: After that I will respond more in detail to your post. As I already stated there’s a problem in the way physics is currently doing research. In short the production department has taken over the research department. This was already so in Newton’s day. The price we pay for this is that this inherent scientific bureaucracy does not only cost too much time, it also costs too much money and it leaves a lot of problems that could have been solved unsolved for far too long. Actually an old discussion. At the heart of this is IMO psychology, and that the problem as such exists is clearly shown in history. Relatively new insights in psychology shed light on what is the problem and thus also who to solve it. But let’s first look at the problems of mathematics. MATHMATICS IN SCIENCE and Physics On the other hand also the place of mathematics in science should be looked at. Historically physics has been looking at it of the reputed maxim of Rutherford on tests and statistics. I.e. not that long ago statistics were looked upon by mathematicians and physicists alike as a sort of unscientific guesswork. Now we can conclude that these old school advocates have lost that argument and that we have moved from a deterministic approach to having an empirical statistical approach to physics as well. In fact what has happened is that the standard of proof has dropped when running into problems. Quite normal and proper. Now I’m going to invite the physicists to come all the way down via intuitive Bayesian statistics and ditto probabilistic reasoning via Bayesian networks etc. being the mathematics of common sense, to the word salad level of logical reasoning. Although science strives to get a deterministic explanation of everything in nature, it is a priori quite clear we are never going to get there. So you need to use the appropriate way of reasoning based on the amount of data that you have. If you overstate your position, i.e. reason deterministically where you could only pose a statistical based argument to that degree you are selling more than you can deliver. To that extent you are thus acting in a pseudo-scientific way. The same applies if you base an explanation on a big picture based only data that cover part of the picture. If data are missing you will have to guess. Thus it is not allowed in properly executed mathematics to measure something with an accuracy in a thousandth of a mm and a deviation of meters. And then pretending it is better to work that accurately. Working too accurate costs too much time, and money and leads to errors in reasoning for losing sight of the big picture etc. and leads too unjustified hopes. The price of the latter is that people lose their trust in science, when it is proven wrong. The same is true if the standard of proof that is demanded for any new idea is placed unreasonably and thus too high. In fact that is the seemingly reasonable trick to get rid of unwanted idea’s. Simply apply an unreasonable standard of proof on the one that carries the burden of that proof. Also the reasonable attribution of the burden of proof is a point. The one that states a position should prove that position. Yet the division of labour also comes into play. A taxpayer like I pays taxes in order to have science done. If a guy like Krauss comes along selling idea’s as if they are science that particles can be here there everywhere and nowhere at the same time and that everything is in fact moving nothing, then he can’t place the burden of proof on anyone to provide the mathematics on a proven concept to the contrary that hasn’t the mathematics yet, if it is testable. The reason is, that the concept level is the word salad level of logic at which level it only can be decided what garbage or non-garbage to put into the subsequent mathematics. Mathematics doesn’t provide that. You are only allowed to counter with mathematics taking the stated assumptions as a fact and showing it logically (internally) inconsistent or inconsistent with observations. Both to the extent that it can be deemed irreparably improbable. If you say to mr Math’s c = max then if mr Maths subsequently says that you can mathematically travel back in time, then someone has fulfilled the burden of proof by pointing out the possibility of a garbage in problem, and a word salad concept that is consistent with all observations and that addresses all relevant problems. As a tax payer this person can subsequently oppose funding research into the possibility of traveling back in time. Science is or at least should be primarily about finding the truth. In order to do that it however needs a degree of order. In order to provide that it is essential to get the definitions into a practical order. I.e. one can use stipulative (new) definitions to do that. As shown deterministic reasoning doesn’t / can’t deal with everything in science but logic can. So if we have to take a decision for instance what idea’s to fund in physics. Now before we go into that let us first look at a practical example of the difference between research and production: CHUCK “Right stuff” YEAGER Just to add a nice true story to illustrate the difference between research and production. Alas I can't find the book of Chuck "Right Stuff" Yeager. You know the guy that broke the sound barrier. As far as I can remember then: The USAF had a problem of the Sabre jetfighter crashing and killing pilots. It was the cold war so it was deemed an urgent problem. Crash investigation had narrowed it down to all the aircraft being out of the same production batch. They had torn the aircraft to bits but couldn't spot the problem. So they went to test-pilot Yeager and said: look there is an as far as we know airworthy aircraft from that batch, take it for a spin and try and find out what's wrong. So Yeager took along his helmet kicked the tires did a real accurate pre-flight check and gingerly took off. Very gingerly taking it to a considerable height. There he started doing aerobatics. And, shore enough when he was making a manoeuvre he unexpectedly spun to the right. So he did what the flight manual dictates and pushed his stick hard to the left. He's controls froze up on him. Now if you're doing say 800 km/h at say ten km height (not to use knots and feet) you are in a bit of trouble time wise to sort things out. So Yeager let go of the controls to get himself out of the loop (of the system). And sure enough the spinning resided. So he then again tried to push the stick conforming the manual, yet again the controls froze up. Then he let go and did it very gently, and the aircraft responded. So he landed safely albeit red-eyed and with leaves in the ailerons. Now this narrowed it down: further investigation revealed that there had been a guy in production who thought it a good idea to put a bolt in the aileron upside down, because it was easier. And the aileron still had maximum deflection, so why bother. Alas, when the wing flexed under pressure it could no longer give maximum deflection when just that was needed. The moral of the story: In production: do as your told, be conscientious and don't be creative; In research: the realm of the test pilot: it takes guts and fast guess work and a don't follow the book attitude or you will auger in like all those other conscientious pilots who ended up doing what the manual said pushing the stick hard left all the way down. Psychology dictates what personalities go where. I.e. Yeager shouldn’t of said: now you be more concise, what is wrong with the plane. In research you get on with it, quick and dirty if necessary. Then there was a cold war on. They could of course gone and try and contentiously find the needle in the haystack. That would of taken much longer. And still test flights would have to be done. Maybe even at the same risk because they might have found something else seemingly wrong, fix that and have a test flight. Ultimately in science doing the test decides the issue and not the prior data. Any hypothesis involves inherent guesswork. Big issues like TOE require a lot of guesswork. We are trying to find TOE better sooner than later. Why? Because knowing more now will cost less lives later via enhanced medicine and what not (if we start acting wisely with the knowledge that is, which can also get organized.) So getting there in ten instead of fifty years saves lives. I.e. getting on with it is urgent. PSYCHOLOGY the BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS The comunis opinio in psychology holds that every human can be placed in one of five personality traits. I.e. everyone scores higher or lower on all five but always one trait is dominant. As a rule of thumb I can concur with this. It fits the way I see the world. On this issue two of the traits are relevant the conscientious on the one and openness on the other. These traits are without a doubt in the core genetic. Someone who scores high on conscientiousness is good at organizing, planning and seen as being rational. These people tend towards a directive communication method. This trait is very important in our western society in being successful. Via damage to the brain we know it resides in the front of the brain. Someone who scores low on this trait isn’t bothered in getting things organized and lets things be. Someone who scores high on openness is inquisitive, creative and is seen by others as strange (crank). Someone who scores low on this does everything as it is supposed to be done. Giving rise to a more reflective less concise way of communicating when a high here is coupled to a low score on conscientiousness. Where openness resides in the brain is more of a mystery. The most broadly held view is that it resides everywhere in the brain: i.e. the tendency to use the whole brain in order to solve a problem. Being extremely open and extremely low on conscientiousness would be nice for say an artist. Just generating idea’s, views that are new and could be inspiring for a scientist in order to use it to further science and thereby contribute to the survival of our species. Now being high on openness and fairly high on conscientiousness or high on conscientiousness and fairly high on conscientiousness are ideal traits for scientists. The former in research the latter in production of science. Does science have a production department then? Yes. When teaching current science for instance. Or when asked to produce something that is known not to need further fundamental research (build a plane that can cross the Antlantic doesn’t need any research anymore. Just follow the book by building a successful plane that does that.) The great minds in science like Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. most would of scored high on the personality trait openness and would be seen as crank. And indeed according to DSM IV & V they are all certifiably mad, geniuses. Or are they? Or has science of psychology gone haywire in deeming the current society as normal as have done the protagonists of DSM taking themselves as normal and conscientiously measuring any greater deviation and branding that abnormal and thus crank? Yet in fact only measuring their own lack of creative intelligence. Now if systems such as DSM would be used wisely then there wouldn’t be that much of a problem. The problem is it provides the unwise with a sales attribute. Instead of giving our kids creatively intelligent education that they don’t get bored the get a pill to sit quiet and fit the system. (Mother Nature built a lot of kids to run around, that is now deemed mentally ill.) Production minded people think in terms of authority and are preoccupied in attaining and holding and following authority. They think that being modest is a virtue. It is in production and sometimes sales. Fully committed in not making mistakes. Everything must be communicated as succinct as possible. Avoiding to much discussions because these are disorderly. Do as your told, don’t rock the boat. Excellent in production. A disaster in research. Then they crash the plane when in a test flight situation. They seem rational up to the point where they are forced out of their comfort zone. They feel that they are of independent thought because no group pressure unless from peers will make them change their mind. They look on open minded people as lazy and or loose cannoned delusional megalomaniac cranks. Research minded people simply answer the stated questions without notions of grandeur, or what not. And accept making mistakes. They are of independent thought in the sense that they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure or authority. They can only work together well with conscientious people if it is in a clear organised way so that it is clear they are the research department. This because they habitually rock the boat. In a schooling system they are usually underachievers. Excellent in research a disaster in production if they don’t learn to behave. Now back to the mathematics of creative intelligence and evidence and proof: DUCK or RABBIT? Collecting data is like putting dots on a piece of paper. If you collect sufficient dots that are sufficiently spread across the entire subject of study at a certain point one can draw a line between the dots. Akin to what Krauss pointed out in a You Tube film that Hubble did: ultimately showing the expanding universe now known as a Law. According to Krauss Hubble first got it wrong insofar that it showed the earth being older than the universe. However on the basis of very few dots Hubble saw the correct line. Good creative intelligent guesswork based on a very limited amount of data by Hubble. As for any high school kid in science class learns to draw the line between the dots is allowed to ignore the dots that are too far off. (As long as you show to have deleted them and don’t add dots that haven’t been observed this is scientifically correct.) Let’s say the dots are at a moment sufficiently spread to draw the picture as in this link. You might then see a rabbit if you have some imagination. With more imagination you could also see a duck. With even more imagination you might even see a hare or a goose. This is the inductive part of the process. This needs the personality trait of openness, especially if we know that we might come across a new never yet observed dark species. It is this imagination of the human mind that makes it possible to investigate the different hypothesis. If it is a hare or a rabbit one would more closely scrutinise via extra testing the dots around the area where whiskers might be expected. And likewise see where the dots might give a wing. This is the deductive part of the process that needs a rigorous scrutiny and thus needs the personality trait of conscientiousness. Matching it to everything we already know. Now another phenomenon also comes into play. If you have too many dots you wouldn’t see the forest through the trees as we Dutch say. You lose sight of the big picture. Apart from that if the brain consciously or even unconsciously sees ears then it is extremely difficult to see hypothesis rabbit or hare. Another problem that can be illustrated this way is that the one with a lot of knowledge and experience on the subject senses that it is a mammal and thus strikes off the idea of duck and goose as being crank. The one with far less knowledge and experience on the subject has in these both respects a strength that lies in that weakness. That is correctly spotting the wing and thus yet incorrectly thinking it could possibly be a duck yet probably is a goose. It could namely ultimately be a bat hanging upside down in the cave of Plato. Being then a bat in this metaphor for an as yet unobserved dark beast. It is thus correct scientific procedure to combine the research and do testing into hypothesis wings, even though the stated duck or goose is correctly sensed to be incorrect. Because it leads to indeed finding a wing. So you are not allowed to fill in dots where no observations have been done. You are however allowed to fill in the line in those areas as long as it is presented as speculation. A very important common mistake of this is also the focussing too much on the parts of the beast that can be well observed (say the ears) and ignoring the parts that inherently can’t or can only marginally be observed (say the wings). How wide or narrow one should take the problem depends on the question one asks. If the question is in fact on a TOE then it is a very wide question. TOE When asking the TOE question you must answer for instance the following questions: Is the cosmos to be assumed infinite? Is the cosmos to be assumed not infinite? Are the questions A and B to be assumed irrelevant? A lot of physicists would state C. That is alright if it were a production situation. Production is only about all that where science is available as knowledge. On TOE that is not the case, thus it is a research question. As it is a research question the answer C is incorrect. You have to go through both hypothesis A and B. Are you then not allowed to try and solve this research question via a production department method? Yes, as long as that is not the only method used. I.e. do both or else you are following an incorrect scientific procedure. This because you then are only looking at the dots (i.e. data) and forgetting to address all problems (i.e. draw an integral picture). Like solving a crime scene, you should both go by the book: i.e. methodically step by step without having a prior notion on the one and on the other try to figure out what scenarios have probably taken place i.e. jump to conclusions and investigate these. That shows you where to start looking. You usually can’t swipe the entire crime scene for DNA for instance. It’s inherently creative guesswork. (Sorry Sherlock its first of all inductive guesswork, then deductive accurately checking). If you only go by the book in trying to solve a crime scene, you get a very thick book. It becomes a costly very bureaucratic exercise costing a lot of time ending up in silly mistakes being made. I could go into length’s showing examples of this. I hope you already got the point. The latter scenario driven way you do via the system of looking at all available evidence (i.e. dots) at that point in the investigation and try and build scenarios (hare, rabbit, goose, duck.) In an open mind setting. There are of course far more questions that should be addressed on TOE (that should now include Hubble.) Because physics is performed in an area where it is possible to do a lot of measurements slowly moving forward as in the production department yields a sure and steady furtherance of science. Yet at the same time it also more and more clogs up the system in preventing addressing the larger questions in a direct way. It is clear where quantum physics is going: slowly but gradually shooting the SM to bits. Ultimate conclusion it is observed all being built up of nothing. At least according to the production department. The production department simply ignores all awkward fundamental questions: What are waves? Is that moving nothing? What is energy? A telekinetic nothing that can provide a force? Haven’t we seen this way of reasoning in the Middle ages concerning the force that blows in the sail of ships? Is the Higgs field that probably exists omnipresent everywhere where atoms can exist? What is mass? Higgsfieldian nothing? Where is the order coming from? I.e. why doesn’t it disintegrate much faster? Don’t we observe pressure in the system? I.e. what is keeping the huge energies we observe are in atoms (atom bomb) at bay? A pull force? What is that? A string lasso? Is it all just a one off, because that is all we can observe? Is that irrelevant for answering the question where to look? DEMOCRATIC SCIENCE : FEAR OF LOZING FACE AND FUNDING This all adds up to the following problem: like three puppy dogs with one venturing out too see what happens if you put your teeth in the couch is the research dog. With the other two staying trembling in their dog basket. The latter two are deemed good dogs by their boss because they behave and do as they’re told. The two get their dog diploma, the other one flunks this due to other interests. Subsequently one of these becomes Top dog and in charge of the cookies (i.e. funding). As any mathematics teacher will know given a certain problem in a class year in year out a group of students makes the same error in reasoning. Let’s say thinking two plus three equals six. The problem is, when these aren’t students but the Top dog managers of funding who usually have a majority. With our dogs in the basket two against one: a two thirds majority. So going about this we get the rule 2 + 3 = 6. Subsequently this goes wrong. Now everybody knows Top dogs don’t make mistakes. So change the rules. Think, think, (how do I do this without personal risk? ) Problem with doing so leaves 2 + 3 = 9. (If interested I can show this for the Lucia de B case.) Simply not grasping that it is wrong. The Top dog as distributer of cookies will hold power even after horrendous mistakes. Psychology and history shows this to be true. You can only change this by organizing it differently. Problem with the scared dogs is they remain dogs that shrike for risks. Which is good. If a bear attacks the scared ones flee and the brave (research) one goes into the attack against the problem. Mother Nature organized it so that the genes have a maximum chance of maintain the species. IDEA => CONCEPT => THEORY => LAW An idea that can be scribbled on the back of a beermat can be the start. One moment of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration. When an idea is in word salad on the common sense level it is a concept. It should address all problems and be stated to be in line with all known observations. The probability of it rises if it remains standing after scrutiny. The one posing an idea not being a professional or educated in the topic means that you have a very low a priori probability of this being – most certain completely – correct. That this doesn’t prove it wrong, because that is the fallacy of authority. You must look at all the evidence. I.e. likelihood ratio’s and posterior odds past the norm. That norm is your standard of proof. You don’t need to do the numbers because word salad logic suffices at this level. If it is presented in a falsifiable way it is per definition scientifically valid on research questions. If part of it is proven by mathematics, it still is only a proof of concept. Yet on a higher standard of proof. Risk = chance x consequence. A cost for gain question. Because for risk of an error due to the Top dog problem everyone is correctly concerned or even in fear for losing face and thus funding. Yet proper research requires trial and error. Now if indeed there is a comunis opinio that all the science has been put to it including the mathematics it should be called a scientific valid theory. There can be opposing theories and thus hypothesis. If one theory remains without a possible way to further investigate and there is broad acceptance of it being correct (always within explicit or implicit boundaries) it should be called a Law. I.e. E = mc2 should not be called a theory but a law of physics. No-one contests its applicability within the area where it works. The same goes not only for historic reasons for the laws of Newton. I.e. a law is only valid within a given or to be assumed field (Sir Karl Popper in fact.). GETTING IT PROPERLY ORGANISED Division of labour also shows what can be asked as burden of proof and what standard of proof should apply in order to have a maximum chance of getting problems solved . Now some scientists say that this would clog the system. Not true. I’ve now seen on this and other forums many idea’s and concepts. All that I’ve seen on TOE are either: Extremely improbable at a concept level (having God or spinning washing machines as particles. Or Krauss cum suis with something coming from nothing i.e. believing in magic.) Inwardly obviously inconstant thus illogical; Un-falsifiable; Not addressing all relevant issues on the stated problem (current science hasn’t either) In conflict with observations; (Which is possible to contest but provides an extremely high standard of proof. For science can and must be trusted. Uninteresting so I agree with Bignose on this ) Conclusions stated as observations. (same in current science: time dilation instead of observed clock slowing down; Length contraction instead of Doppler effect; massless particles instead of probably measurement problem. If someone has fulfilled these criteria this someone can claim proof of concept at the appropriate level. Being the word salad level. If thus applied you will most certainly not clog the system with bad idea’s. ++ Again that is the level at which you decide what garbage or non-garbage to put in the subsequent mathematics.++ So stating that he person who provides such an idea should first do the mathematics is an unreasonable request. That is the job of a scientist mathematician / physicist. The same applies to an idea that comes close but not close enough to fully prove it mathematically or otherwise. Science should organise an investigation into it. Even if no scientist is yet convinced it is correct, this because of the Top dog problem. It should be a matter of course. However it can be necessary to decide which idea’s to investigate first and which later. Therefore a different set of rules apply. First the formal status of an as yet proven concept should be bestowed in order to further chances of this actually happening. It also alleviates the problem of scientist loosing face when the test fails. “I did it even though I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Now we know I was right, its busted because….” And publish that so that we don’t have to do it again. THE STRENGTH OF A CONFIRMATION BIAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Take the story of Billy Mitchell: protagonists of battleships would rather rig the tests and die in their battleships in the then coming war than admit that airpower was already the dominant factor. History showing what in fact is psychology based on the different DNA together forming of human nature. (The rigging of tests in this sense will even usually happen when the scared Top dog feels threatened.) Science needs to get this organised in a way that scientists can brainstorm etcetera without fear of having their idea’s stolen or have fear for not being funded anymore when the test fails. Research is trial and = error =. The latter should be facilitated in order that more risks are taken. The fact that Higgs was deemed an idiot or what not by Stefan Hawking should have led to the Dean of Cambridge giving him a caution. This directly when he stated it. Whether Higgs is proven right or wrong is immaterial. Yet it provides yet again strong evidence for my case that science needs to reorganise itself. (As goes for the law systems my actual topic BTW that got me into this quantum stuff etc..) REACTION TO BIGNOSES POST: That a confirmation bias doesn’t or can’t exist in physics because you use data is incorrect. Physicists are humans and humans are susceptible to a greater or lesser extent to a confirmation bias. Period! What you are pointing at is that you aren’t interested in conspiracy theories. Neither am I. They are highly improbable a priori and thus require a lot of strong evidence. Furthermore you in fact say that one and can trust science to be honest. I agree, I’m convinced that dishonest reporting (adding data, or leaving it out without mention) happens, but is not at the heart of the problem. This is where peer review and vetting etcetera also comes into play. And, where reputation is important. With a proof on concept as stated above it is far less important. Everyone can vet themselves and check the idea. The idea should speak for itself. It doesn’t have to be to accurate. It can’t be. At first at least. Only if you have done the mathematics based on the required assumptions of the stated idea as well can you bust an idea with the mathematics. Sticking to the mathematics based on other assumptions doesn’t disprove anything. That is executing a confirmation bias. So is requiring a too high a standard of proof or refusing to do ones job. Assumptions are inherent unicorns. If you take the unicorn only to be a horse with a horn and no further magic, then that can indeed be a metaphor for an as yet undiscovered beast that could exist, and sometimes indeed is spotted. Like has happened countless times in the history of science and physics. Spotting the correct assumptions and integrating this in a testable logical idea requires creative intelligence. For that the human brain is extremely well equipped. Use it via organizing it properly. The funding or effort required the more accurate the idea, concept, and subsequent theory has to become. THAT is proper science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I completely agree. Now we must wait. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 ! Moderator Note One thread per topic please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts