Can Two Wrongs Make a Right?

Antonio Lao

Searching for the truth in science always lead to finding out what is right or what is wrong for a particular theory and its experimental verification. In criminal law, every suspect is innocent unless proven guilty. But in science, every theory is wrong unless proven right. The burden of the proof lies with the right experiment.

If a theory is developed to show that the vacuum has a force and experiment cannot find this force then the theory is wrong only up to the limit that the experiment is right. A right experiment can prove a wrong theory wrong. A wrong experiment can prove a right theory wrong. A right experiment can always prove a right theory right. Finally, a wrong experiment can always prove a wrong theory right.

McQueen

Ok ! But what about the domino type of catastrophe effect . So you have a right experiment for which you draw the wrong conclusions , on which all future experiments are based and from which all conclusions are drawn and so on. So that in the end you end up far from where you wanted to be which was closer to the truth. So although it is always poissible to set a wrong experiment right , it is much more difficult to set wrong conclusion right , which affects all future developments.

krab

This is backwards. Theories in science cannot be proven right, only wrong.

Gokul43201

That's why experiments are not immediately believed until they are independently verified or are shown to be repeatable.

Gokul43201

I imagine what Lao means is that theories gain acceptance after there is sufficient experimental verification.

Hence, Einstein's Nobel Prize for explaining the Photoelectric Effect.

Hydr0matic

By "wrong experiment" I don't think Lao was talking about a technical error, but an experiment perhaps based on some erroneous conclusions or poor assumptions.

For some reason Bell experiments come to mind ...

Antonio Lao

Thanks for your replies, threaders of the lost force.

I started this post for the main reason of finding the lost force of antigravity. Why does gravity is only manifested as an attractive force? Why the expansion of space is not caused by any kind of repulsive force? The existence of this antigravity force is not obvious and was thought not necessary for formulation of any physical theory. Yet both the forces of gravity and antigravity should be related to the true meaning of mass. Are there just one kind of mass in the Law of Universal Gravitation and the Second law of Motion since both gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent? Or is there another mass beside gravity mass and inertial mass? Can this be the kinetic mass which should be related intimately with the relativistic mass?

energia

historically speaking there has never been a theory that was 100% right

why should science ruin a perfect track record?

Antonio Lao

The individuals who can really ruin this perfect track record are either dead or yet to be born.

Gokul43201

Actually, there are so many theories that are a 100% correct, that you'll be astonished. Of course there are many more wrong theories...but most of those were "non-scientifically" arrived at.

Antonio Lao

I am holding in my hand a book by Jennifer Bothamley called "Dictionary of Theories." From A to Z and starts with 'a priori theories' in accountancy to 'Zorn's lemma' in mathematics. And the people from Abegg, Richard (1896-1910) to Zweig, George (1937- ). And the name Aristotle (384-322 BC) appeared most for the more than 5,000 entries of theory.

sol2

http://www.friesian.com/images/arch.gif

I like to stretch people's imaginations