alexjrgreen wrote:tomclarke wrote:alexjrgreen wrote:
It doesn't require extraordinary proof.
It requires exactly the the same quality of properly reviewed, independently replicated evidence as any other claim.
OK. This is absolutely (and mathematically provably) not true. It is a simple matter of Bayes theorem. An extraordinary claim has a much lower prior probability than one which is compatible with existing theory. So for it to be preferred stronger evidence is required. the framework here is inductive, not deductive, and all evidence is probabilistic.
Argument from authority...
This stuff is a gift for politicians needing to set research budgets. Just don't confuse it with science.
Alex -
You obviously have a political poiint to make here. I do not. But I will stick with my defence of the scientific method and induction as a proper and (in principle, though often not in practice) mathematically provable activity.
The Popper et al arguments for contextualism in science are interesting & probably often relevant to the practice of science. But they are not (as Popper claims) an inherent limit on the nature of scientific 'truth'. Popper does not consider induction as a sound analytic method of reasoning. To be fair, the framework which allows this was not well developed when he was writing.
Induction - based on Bayes theorem and the calculation of posterior probabilities from prior probabilities is real. It is what scientists do all the time when going for a theory becaause it is beatifully simple and has wide predictive power.
There is no reductionism here. It is not always easy to determine prior probabilities. The space of possible theories of up to a given complexity is finite but so large that we can only consider a small number of possible theories, even with a complexity limit. So prejudice & bias is always possible. Still, the machinery exists to judge that one theory is more likely than another, given a set of evidence. And that, whether in science (do we give money to Hydrino research?) or life (what is the likely impact on my health if I stop eating red meat now?), is worth having. Of course the money question is also political.
I think that dismissal of induction - and by extension the way that good working scientists select between theories - as a political device with no scientific reality would if maintained consistently lead to a post-modern maze where nothing can be relied upon because nothing is certain.
The irony here is that nothing can be relied upon because nothing is (deductively) certain. But many things are so likely that we can treat them as certain (that the earth will continue rotating, etc). And there is a real difference in our behaviour if we believe something to be 80% likely to be true or 1% likely to be true.
Perhaps your point (political) is that too much money is given to mainstream research and too little to alternative less likely approaches. That is reasonable, and of course anyone interested in Polywell would be likely to think that. Though, to be fair, Polywell has decent money behind it, enough to reduce uncertainty and lead either to bigger money or pack up shop.
My point is that however you want to allocate money, judging the credibility of alternative theories is necessary as a basis for other decisions, and it is based on the simplicity and explanatory power of the theory, as well as its compatibility with other 'good' theories.
Otherwise, my theory that fusion happens at the whim of God and the way to build successful fusion reactors is to conduct the right set of prayers, whilst combining reaction ingredients, should get decent funding. After all, if I am right ITER success could be ensured at massively lower cost than nor proposed. Also Polywell should be working on the correct set of "IEC prayers".
Best wishes, Tom