What is "proof"?

My understanding is that scientists publish a finding, then it goes through some steps to show that it is true. What constitutes acceptable proof of something scientific?

What steps does it have to go through to become "teachable" or even "respectable"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

proofreading by others, extensive proofreading by top scholars. MLA standards, facts backed up, everything in check.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It has to go through a "logical" Step.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Example: I want to get a scientific theory to become fact. Let's call it the theory of grabbity. Matter grabs at other matter, and that's why we're held down. I dropped an orange out of a tree and saw it hit the ground rather than float. There's my experiment. Now what?

 

now repeat that experiment 100 times more.
write results with any fluctuation for every time you dropped it.
white all details of the experiment.
review experiment.
draw a hypothesis as to why it happened.
Change some variables in your experiment, use an apple, use a feather, use a rock...see what repeats what does not.
draw logical conclusions from the experiment.
Get your data and logic proofread by others.
Get them to repeat your experiment and get the same results.
Get them to review their experiments with others.
All same with minimum number of fluctuations in data? You are in da books brother.

 

Them who?

 

other scientists just like you who followed the same process. Its basically a big circle of scientists coming together to a postulate.

 

Waitwaitwait. So. In theory. A bunch of people known to be scientists could get together and just "decide" something is worthy or not? How many does it take? Do they vote on it? Do the numbers of votes matter?

Understand that this confirms that science and art are frighteningly philosophically similar.

 

"science is in the eye of the beholder"

-Mr. Hamtastic

circa 2009

You should be writing this stuff down!

 

In theory, yes.
And it could be as few as one scientist.
But will he get funding for it?
One problem is that the money men largely want to see results (preferably results they can make more money out of) - so it becomes a political decision as whether the scientist is "allowed" to carry out the research.

 

Ah.

So take medical science. Things that cure illness are less appealing than things that treat illness. More ill=more money, right?

How does someone get the label "scientist"?

 

Ooh, you old cynic you.
But probably has some element of truth.
Plus it's easier to cure symptoms that eradicate the illness at source.
Symptoms can be treated as and when they crop up - in individuals.
To eradicate a disease you'd have to ensure that everyone received the treatment and then ensure it didn't mutate and come back in a worse form.

Usually by going through (and passing) the training syllabus.
The way someone who builds a wall or two is not necessarily a brick-layer.

 

Where can I find a cheap but effective syllabus? I know how to pander for money, so the paper writing thing should be ok. After a year or two I'll be "respected" and a "has spoken on the topic" guy.

Then I'll show you all!

Wait. Forget that last part.

I'm sorry, though. Scientists are quick to point out that they deal in probabilities. It sounds like a system that is easy to abuse if there was some collusion. Some organization that decided things. I mean, isn't science the new catholicism? Aren't some things "strictly verboten", at least in the US?

"It's just bad science" is not an explanation for these things. I believe I can fly unaided if I jump from a high enough point. You want to scientifically prove me wrong without throwing things my size from all possible heights in my presence. I refer to take your word for it without proof... What would you do?

Experts? I will of course doubt they are experts. Theory of Gravity? It's not even a "law"(which was agreed upon apparently).

You have motivation to convince me for some reason... you'll be strapped to my back.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Google: you can do science courses on-line or at college/ university.

Too late, it's burrowed into my mind.

Verboten?
Some things aren't allowed by law - certain types of research on humans, for example, some because the money men don't think it's a valid proposition and some (the woo woo subjects among others) because they've been so thoroughly discredited it's like trying to sell used motor oil as a refreshing sports drink - not worth the time unless something REALLY different comes along to alter the situation.

No, science doesn't prove things wrong, except incidentally.
If you have a claim it's up to you to show that it's true.

Ah, there are laws appertaining to gravity, but the "theory of gravity" is a catch-all term for the search to find out WHY there's gravity and WHY it works.
We largely know HOW it works - hence the laws/ equations.

Silly man.
That's an age old ambition of mine, strapped to your back while leaping off a tall building.
Flying with Mr ham?
Who would want to pass that up?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Remember the cold fusion guys? I thought that was considered total woowoo, yet it's being researched, or so I've read.

I find a scientific fact that has been overlooked in poopoohing other ideas. I need other expertise. If I want to keep my tenure, and share my discovery, what do I do?

Yes, Hamtastic Air is the best, just don't eat the free peanuts.

 

It is being researched.
One reason being that the equipment needed is relatively cheap.
So finding out if there is anything to it doesn't soak up huge budgets, and the pay-off (should there ever be one) is phenomenal.
It's a cost/ potential benefit thing.

Make sure you're on very solid ground.
Check and re-check your data, make sure there's no bias in the results.
Start small with the publication - get someone else to verify your research, and don't send it to Nature or Physics Review with the heading "This will change everything!!".

Regularly scheduled flights?

 

As long as you keep it a "theory" it isn't really considered a "fact" until it is proven by the scientific methold and verified by other scientists.

 

No, you are incorrect. It is not necessary to prove something, only that your model or explanation fits the data to a reasonable degree of accuracy, it can make predictions. The popular notion that scientists have to prove things, otherwise their theories are a good as anyone's guess is wrong.

 

Interesting. Does that mean that once some scientist, or group of scientists, reach some reasonable conclusion, then all scientist must accept their conclusion(s) as accurate and "proven"? ...and all scientists then stop trying to prove anything about the theory?

Baron Max

 

It depends how accurate the hypothesis is, how often it is confirmed in other ways by different scientists.