Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Scientist explains nothing - film at 10:33 Message-ID: <78@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Aug-87 22:44:16 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.78 Posted: Tue Aug 4 22:44:16 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Aug-87 02:52:34 EDT References: <1731@tekig5.TEK.COM> <8708040902.AA21998@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Distribution: world Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 39 Summary: Sufficiency of proof is relative In article <8708040902.AA21998@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <1731@tekig5.TEK.COM>, chrisa@tekig5 (Omega) writes: >> A scientist, for example, may believe that a certain phenomena can >>be explained by a certain theory because past experience tells him that >>it 'sounds' right. However, a good scientist will not commit himself >>to that theory until there has been sufficient experimental proof of >>it. > >Be careful: you are walking across a very difficult philosophical mine- >field. Does such a thing as "sufficient experimental proof" ever exist? >Does it matter whether a scientist is right or wrong? That is, I'll >agree that a *careful* or *cautious* scientist avoids committing himself, >but I don't think that always makes for "good" science. > When you talk about something being "sufficient", you must answer "sufficient for what?". If a scientist believes in a particular theory, then clearly any evidence (not necessarily *experimental*, by the way, as in astronomy) there is was *sufficient* to convince him. The same evidence may not be sufficient to convince another, or to convince most scientists in related fields. Sufficient truth does exist, when you specify who is to be convinced. A child (or a student just starting in a subject) requires little or no proof. An extreme skeptic requires a great deal of proof. A bigot could be said to require an infinite amount of truth. The criterion of sufficiency of truth that makes the most sense in order for something to be widely accepted in scientific circles is just this: "Sufficient to convince most scientists". What this specifically amounts to is what most scientists currently find convincing, whatever that happens to be at any particular point in the history of science. A "good" scientist is one who will ultimately be most convincing to fellow scientists, the one who gets the last laugh, so to speak. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge