A number of years ago (I read about it in a class on research methods in or around 1977) a researcher proposed that in addition to posting statistical measures of the validity of a theory (such as being at the 95th percentile of probability from an analysis of the variance) the researchers should post a bounty of, say, $10,000 that would be paid to any researcher who was able to disprove the theory or find a crucial error in the research methods. The value of the bounty would reflect the level of confidence that the researchers had in their results and, if claimed, would fund additional research in the same area, resulting in greater rigor in subsequent research.
Can anyone give me a web address or a bibliography citation for this paper?
A theory already has enough evidence which supports it as being accurate that it is essentially a “fact.”
That said, the way science works, it is called a Scientific Theory because science admits that new evidence can always come up and change even the most accepted things.
However, it is extremely unlikely that, say, evidence that gravity was somehow different a millenia ago will turn up, or that gravity as we know it will change.
But science leaves open the POSSIBILITY of further discoveries - that is what science does, you know.
As such, no need for silly bounties… You come up with evidence which refutes an accepted scientific theory, and people will listen and you’ll probably come up with a Nobel prize.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, 16 hours, 11 minutes and 3 seconds.
7906 cigarettes not smoked, saving $988.37.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 50 minutes.
I don’t have a cite but the concept is well meaning but inherently foolish. Determining whether something is a “crucial error” in a particular methodological paradigm is open to additional levels of interpretation and debate.
Unless you had a peer reviewed “methods court” or something equally unlikely, how could there be agreement on the question of what is or is not a “crucial error”?
Sloppy or biased methodology is the bane of science (especially the social sciences) but eventually the truth will out. It’s amazing, though, how the supposedly critical and cynical mass media will lap up even the most fuzzy headed, poorly researched nonsense and parrot it as “scientific truth” so long as it “feels right” and has a good sound bite attached to it.
This is incorrect, Satan. A theory is nothing more than an explanation that fits the available data. People start to accept it as a “fact” if it holds up over the course of many years. For every theory that has stood up to repeated scrutiny (like the Theory of Relativity) there are thousands more that must be abandoned because it turns out that they’re not true.
In addition, many scientific hypotheses are considered highly improbable, from the start. For instance, one of my professors is studying the possibility that the Universe might be multiply connected on visible lengthscales, and has a means of testing this, once the MAP mission returns its data. He’ll be very surprised, when the data comes in, if it turns out to support this possibility. Nonetheless, it’s a valid and interesting area of research, because on the off chance that it’s true, the implications will revolutionize cosmology as we know it. Why should he have to make a bet that he knows he’s likely to lose?
For that matter, how strongly a scientist believes in a theory has absolutely zilch to do with whether it should be accepted. There are plenty of crackpots out there convinced that they and they alone know all the secrets of the Universe.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, two weeks, 22 hours, 23 minutes and 55 seconds.
7917 cigarettes not smoked, saving $989.66.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, 45 minutes.
From time to time I’ve encountered the notion among the General Public that scientists get together periodically and vote on stuff, like “All in favor of General Relativity say, ‘Aye’!” or that there’s some all-powerful board of scientists somewhere that decides what’s right and what’s not.
This is the first time I’ve heard of a monetary reward, though. Heh. What, fame and the pursuit of truth not enough for ya? Let’s throw some money into the mix and give scientists a real motive to supress anyone who might prove them wrong! Anyway, what a legal nightmare!
I think he means you can look out your window and see yourself. I.e., we might look through a telescope and watch the formation of earth. I’m exaggerating, but you get the point, hopefully.
Chronos, if your professor is right, post a link to his paper on this board. Heck, if he’s wrong but publishes how he tested, I’m sure we’d be interested in that. Yeah, the data wil most likely disprove his hypothesis, but what if it doesn’t? It will revolutionize everything, if I’m understanding you right.
What about Laws? Aren’t they true so far? You know science Laws. The laws of thermodynamics [sp]? e.g. Websters: law:
: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions
Scientific laws are theories which have stood the test of time and have survived numerous attempts to disprove them i.e. they have been found to hold under all known circumstances.
This does not preclude the possibility, however remote, that a “law” might be overturned (or superseded) by new evidence. For instance, Newton’s Laws of Physics are still correct under most terrestrial circumstances, but the theory of relativity and the evidence to support it required a revision of Newton’s Laws: they are now seen as a special case for relativity.
Not so. Scientific laws are descriptions of phenomena, not explanations. Newton’s Laws of Motion describe how forces affect objects and such, but provides no explanation for what a force is, how it is transmitted, or anything of that sort. Laws answer the how, but not the why.
For a good run-down of the various terms used in conjunction with the scientific method, go here.
I haven’t been able to find a reference for it, other than a mention of a colloquium proceeding. Then again, the ADS search engine seems to be acting a bit flaky; if I can’t find it there tonight, I’ll try to flag him down in the hall in the next few days. Mind, when I do find the paper, it’s only the proposal, since he doesn’t have the data yet.
Yes, “non-simply connected on visible scales” essentially means being able to look at the back of your head. The test he’s using will be based on the data from the MAP (Microwave Anisotropy Probe), and basically consists of looking for matching circles in the data.
I agree with Mauve Dog (thanks for the link). Theories are the goal of science, not Laws. Theories are explanations, Laws are essentially statistical generalizations. A Law provides a reliable equation that you can plug numbers into, but without the Theory, you’ll have no idea why it is so.
An example: Teslicles deviant to Fudd’s law, which goes, “If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.” Or “Half a watt goes in here must come out there.” Theories would be developed to account for these denomena, but until something alimentary can be absolved, the law is an apse.
