(From Page 1 of Thread. Approx. 2nd or 3rd post by protonman.)
Originally posted by protonman
...experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something.
...All experiment can do is nullify something.
It can not establish something conclusively.
In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason.
...Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory. ...
I'd like to respond to protonman's point's from this post and some others. Regarding the quote above, I trimmed out certain parts of the post, to get to the basic arguments presented, not to quote out of context, or simplify the arguments.
I'd also like to mention something regarding the Scientific Method that was not explicitly stated earlier, and is very important. Generally speaking, there are 3 possible results when an experiment is performed to test something: success, failure, or inconclusive (i.e. possible).
The Scientific Method differs from faith-based beliefs because it states that until proven, a hypothesis is false, as opposed to possible. In other words, although the results of tests may consistently be inconclusive, for any number of reasons, the Scientific Method states that in such cases, what has been tested, remains FALSE, not inconclusive, nor possible.
Now, to protonman's point's, which are separately quoted, from above.
1) "...experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something."
The quote was made in the context of the absence of a "reasoned hypothesis" to be tested. By reasoned hypothesis, protonman refers to a "principle" arrived at by logic, deductive reasoning, and what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation.
The "something" in this context refers to an experiment that has a true result, without a reasoned hypothesis that is being tested.
Given protonman's posts, I interpret the premise of the argument quoted above to be:
A hypothesis that is not based on logic, nor deductive reasoning, nor what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation, can not be conclusively experimental verified.
My interpretation appears to be quite different than what was actually quoted above. However, after reading the entire thread several times, and the context in which the quotation was made, it is my best assessment of actual meaning, if not the actual words, of the quotation.
It is certainly fair to say that applying the Scientific Method to a hypothesis for which there is either, no empirical evidence, nor any rational basis for establishing would certainly be not only a misuse of the Scientific Method. Moreover, experimentation of that nature, has no basis in Science, whatsoever.
The quotation is actually baiting an argument, due to what the quotation does not clearly state.
2) "...All experiment can do is nullify something."
This statement is clear, and is actually false.
The although a reasoned hypothesis, tested via the Scientific Method can yield different results (mentioned above), the Scientific Method
can not prove what is not true (i.e. a false result is not proof of what is a true result).
The Scientific Method can prove a hypothesis is true, subsequent to that logic and deductive reasoning can be applied to the true result to conclude what must be false.
The Scientific Method can only be used to prove what is true, it can not prove what is false. That requires logic and deductive reasoning.
Therefore, the quotation above is false. One can not prove a negative
via the Scientific Method!
3) "It can not establish something conclusively."
"It" refers to the Scientific Method.
"conclusively" in the context of protonman's posts is understood to mean a universal result that is true in all known and unknown systems.
The Scientific Method, and verification and validation via repeated testing using varied data, as well as, verification and validation via cross-testing of other known reliable tests establishes what can be accepted as conclusive results, within a system.
Only a fool would argue that s/he knows what is unknown. Protonman's
basis for the argument presumes to know the unknown. Protonman can not assert anything scientific without providing empirical evidence of the assertion. The burden of proof for the assertion(s) of unknown systems rests entirely upon protonman to establish.
4) "In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason."
I don't think anyone would argue that.
Mathematics uses logic and reason, as does Physics.
Protonman's original 2 questions can be scientifically be answered using mathematics to explain the reasoned principles that have yielded positive results, via the Scientific Method.
It should be noted that the reasoned principle, a.k.a. the basis, of a hypothesis is reasoned and the experiment is conducted within a "system", for example: our environment, our solar system, etc.
It is widely believed that OTHER SYSTEMS EXIST, in which it is not logical to assume that the reasoned principle is applicable, and that the positive test results from the tested system, would be false within another system. In fact, the Scientific Method demands such results be false in another system!
These are the systems in which we say that all KNOWN laws of physics
are unknown, and are expected to "break down".
No assertions are known to me personally, that the known laws of physics would hold true in unknown systems.
5) "...Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory"
Correct.
Empirical Evidence is grounds for establishment of a Theory a.k.a. Hypothesis.
Experimental agreement is grounds for validating the reliability of the result(s) of the Scientific Method, after applying it to a Theory.
Experimental agreement establishes reliability of valid results.
---------------------------------------------------------
What went wrong with this thread? IMO, There's a lot of baiting that can only be understood after reading the entire thread. Protonman made plenty of assertions, and provided no proof of them. On the other hand, it seems from the tone of the thread, that the 2 initial questions could have been answered mathematically, rather than ONLY asserting that experimentation provides proof. Both sides went to extremes. However, latter in the thread, protonman admitted to baiting in his initial thread post, and what followed.
