Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt
From: elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Bell's Inequality (Reply to E. Brooks)
Message-ID: <614@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 14:00:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: astrovax.614
Posted: Mon Jun 10 14:00:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 04:55:03 EDT
References: <612@astrovax.UUCP> <631@lll-crg.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 19

> To find the breakage you start with with a prediction of the theory and
> find an experiment that does not agree.  To do anything else is to bark up
> the wrong tree.

We're getting repetitive here and, no doubt, boring our readers.  
Nevertheless, I'll restate (one of) my points in one more way.  The above
quote is a statement of a *theory* of how science is or ought to be done.
It is inconsistent with the "experimental" (really historical) facts
concerning many of the important advances in science (see my earlier, long
posting, the Chandrasekhar article cited in it, or any good history
of science for details).

The odd thing about this dispute is that the above quoted "theory of
science" is mainly appealing on intuitive and aesthetic grounds and
thus persists despite its disagreement with fact, in other words it
is an example of what it would itself classify as an unsatisfactory theory!

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt