Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site dg_rtp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation Message-ID: <198@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 15:42:24 EST Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.198 Posted: Mon Mar 3 15:42:24 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Mar-86 06:34:39 EST References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP> <954@lanl.ARPA> <208@ulowell.UUCP> <435@ccivax.UUCP> Lines: 58 Xref: watmath net.sci:557 net.philosophy:4341 > rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) I think some of the points are valid, but I also think many are not. In particular, the statement > Any theory can be proven false by ignoring the supporting evidence. is odd and, it seems to me, misleading. First, theories in science are "proven" false by finding contradicting evidence, not by lack of supporting evidence. Second, no "scientific theory" is ultimately provable in any event... *all* accepted scientific theories are in a state of "not yet disproved". Another major problem is that in the examples given (like UFOs, Parapsychology, Bermuda Triangle, and so on), "science" hasn't rejected the *phenomena*. "Science" has rejected a popular *interpretation* of the phenomena. The distinction is important. [ Note that I'm not claiming that "science" never rejects phenomena wrongly. One of the worst examples is the decision by some French scientific bureaucracy to assume that all reports of stones falling from the sky were hoaxes or mistakes. ] For the most part, "science" doesn't doubt that people see flying objects, get hunches, get lost near Bermuda, and so on and on. What "science" doubts is that these things are caused by LGM, "psychic powers", or whatever-the-latest-fad-about-the-triangle-is. What is needed is for the explaination to explain something (already known or newly discovered) that more traditional explainations do not, while at the same time not contradicting any (or rather, too many) other known things. Most of the subjects Rex lists as currently "taboo" to science have flaws in one or both of these areas. That is, they don't explain the data any better, or they contradict other known data. And from this, I conclude that the *subjects* are not taboo, but the *explainations* from the data *are* (and rightly so, for the most part). > Someone has to search before you can research. I think that the search (and research) is ongoing and healthy. (It could, of course go on more and be more healthy.) What many seem to find unacceptable is an "I don't know" response to any question. To me, it seems much more damaging to say "I *do* know" prematurely. To me, "Fringe science" seems much more guilty of premature ossification than "establishment science". Things are constantly being moved from the "taboo" category to the "well-trusted theory" category. One of the recent moves of this type was "plate tectonics". Originally ridiculed (even though it explained much) because it had no mechanism to "drive" the movement, it became more and more accepted (and is now in the "cannon") when this mechanism was discovered (sea-floor spreading). Thus, I think that one's favorite fringe science can be made acceptable to the "establishment". All one needs to do is find the evidence. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw