There is a current irreproducibility crisis in biological areas, where a well-known journal editor declared that, for example, neuroscience would advance if all articles were destroyed. The reason is that more than half of such articles are irreproducible or just provably wrong [1].
There is also a movement, visible in RG but not exclusively, that uses scientific terms, such as doubt, to deny science. It is similar to an auto-imune disease. Any logical or experimental argument can then be neutralized as "belief", "unscientific propaganda", "hoax", or "fake news" . Doubt, to them, seems like a technical term, just as "steam cleaning". There is no steam in "steam cleaning", it is just hot water.
Thus, how to insert scientific doubt in this context? As a constant denial? As a cure to irreproducibility, in any science?
Doubt is necessary in science, until you have proof. You should, then, still question the proof, in the process, but nature is the arbiter in natural science, and intellect in maths. After that, one has to have the mental discipline in science to follow beyond the proof, to where it may go. There is no "constant doubt" to what is proven twice, by nature and mind, many times over and by varied researchers, in physics.
It may happen that -- even then -- a factor is overlooked, a result is wrong. But, exactly by forging forward we can find the future inconsistencies, which we do not condemn, or the people. We value them as a door, even as a small keyhole, that let us see what is beyond the door, the wormhole that links different realities, and we find new proofs, go further.
We need to discard knowledge, even published articles, that are not correct, so science would have better chance advance.
Physics has a much better track record, and better venues, where all is read and used, it is a very competitive area, but some papers "jump the shark" and have a shorter lifetime -- the USPTO, for example, does not examine anymore patents on perpetual motion, or any such "exciting" experiment. [2]
So, as a subject in semiotics, a word is not what "I mean" -- or any single individual means -- but what the more objective social computation reveals, a collective effect, and what is avoided confusion, in the real world. [3]
That does not mean any term or experiment is "wrong," just more contradictory in some cases, showing what does not exist, if it does not work in real cases. And that does not mean one is in contradiction about the nnatural science, either -- may just not express it coherently.
Science cannot prove truth, but helps everyone get closer.
[1] Presentation The Big Idea in Physics and Science: The Absolute
[2] The good, important message of physics, is that some papers work, others don't, and both are impartial -- for friends and foes alike. Nature is impartial, fair like a coin toss. The same rain that damages the seed of a farmer that were drying, is the rain that makes another farmer's seeds grow -- but the rain is fair, neutral. The notion of useful, however, is partial -- useful to which farmer?
For example, writing that "comoving observers have the same velocity and position" is as defined by copy from standard use, not by one person, it is in standard use in cosmology, the SR, and Newtonian mechanics. This has the benefit of avoiding fruitless arguments, by students or readers, such as in SR incorrect articles, published papers but incorrect. It also connects well with cosmology, and the CMB. A particular use can be different and special, which is also allowed. One just cannot draw logical conclusions in physics, for it.
[3] Paraphrasing one of Frege's examples, if I tell you "I will photograph the Morning Star" or if I tell you "I will photograph the Evening Star" then, clearly, the two phrases have the same reference (i.e., the planet Venus) but one describes it as the last celestial body to disappear at dawn and the other as the first one to appear at dusk -- thus, they have different senses or meanings.
In Ed Gerck, Technical Report Toward Real-World Models of Trust: Reliance on Received Information
1998.
I explained elsewhere on the danger, such as confirmation bias, of following one's opinion, or what one can imagine -- that it is better to focus on questions than (supposed) facts or (outdated) quotes. I give an example that seems far removed, but harbors the same issue.
It comes from the theory and the practice of tri-state logic design and as taught in EE in good universities. And, in Physics, let us remind ourselves that there is a notion of right and wrong --- it it agrees with Nature, it is right; but wrong otherwise. Opinions and voting do not matter in Physics, Maths, EE, and son on.
Everyone should know this, and it can change lives, can bring in new sound ideas, did influence logic, all as explained below, in different logic levels, as well.
In RG, for example, we can use it. Some answers are YES, some NO, and some are DON'T CARE. You have three logical states, but RG gives a point for any answer!
Is RG one state? Always YES? No, it's a multi-state computation, where each answer is counted according to different values, and any answer has more than three states it can be found, but RG shows only one, a point.
Go get your point, now, carelessly -- one might think, any anwer is a point -- and a disagreement gives me more points, more answers, more traffic. But, in reality, RG is part of life and life is a school. Being an RG-whale does not make one better, it actually can disqualify -- as all one can do... in life, evaluation follows several logic states, not just Boolean YES and NO.
Same with a tri-state IC. The final state of each chip IC is not just YES and NO, it can also be X. And all is computed in tri-state, one can't mix-in two-state chips, and just imagine that the end is somehow tri-state because the last chip is tri-state.
If you are paying attention, the array of tri-state chips can connect to another tristate device, compatibly. In EE, one can use even 12 states, or more, consult the IEEE for information and standards.
Silicon Valley would not exist otherwise, literally, and tri-state is a TM. It changes lives, and give sound ideas one can follow, and trade-mark, and advance technology along a more sure path -- that Physics also follows -- that of the unknown.
Boolean logic is two centuries behind, cannot compete? No, it just doesn't agree with Nature, as already measured in Physics, EE, Maths, and so on. Time to catch-up, why it makes sense in Physics, for example, to follow Minkowski SR --- that it agrees with Nature more completely, and avoids "paradoxes."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology