- #1
Nigel
- 170
- 0
There is a major difference in approach between mathematical proofs and Popperian speculations in science. Popperian speculations are the opposite of Archimedes’ proofs: you speculate and then experiments are done to check it. This is political stuff, because nobody can speculate unless they have political backing from an editor: speculation is suppressed, dismissed and rejected unless it comes from the right quarters.
So science is dead in that case. The alternative is Archimedes’ approach: you use experimental facts plus mathematical logic to prove, step by step, your results. You allow anyone to point out an error or a misinterpretation in any step. This is what Ivor Catt and myself have done for the mechanism of gravity, taking account of constructive criticisms and suggestions along the way, and it also predicts testable constants like the universal gravitational constant. So this is both an Archimedes’ style proof and offers Popperian predictions. (gravity proof: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)
So science is dead in that case. The alternative is Archimedes’ approach: you use experimental facts plus mathematical logic to prove, step by step, your results. You allow anyone to point out an error or a misinterpretation in any step. This is what Ivor Catt and myself have done for the mechanism of gravity, taking account of constructive criticisms and suggestions along the way, and it also predicts testable constants like the universal gravitational constant. So this is both an Archimedes’ style proof and offers Popperian predictions. (gravity proof: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)
