Very nice post
Len. Great discussion
Ken and
Disinfo Agent.
There are some fine lines that are too important to ignore, many you two have addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Len Moran
...But I take your point that fundamentally, at the quantum and classical level, in order to do science, we have to stand back and apply an objective measurement methodology and accept that that is the best we can ever do regardless of how much we are entwined with the experiment at a very fundamental level.
|
Nice. The problem seems to come when this objective methodology is conveniently ignorned, such as when devoloping some advanced theory (e.g Parallel Universes).
Ken is correct regarding Galileo. Galileo's work on gravity was based on objective experiments. His counterparts were not enthusiastic about it, however. When a colleague professor dropped balls of different weights and found a slight discrepancy in their impact time, they were quick to criticize Galileo. He responed by pointing out that their common consensus view that came from Aristotle - a subjective idea of the mind - was off by a far, far greater amount than his. [Aristotle claimed that objects fall at a rate proportional to their weight.]
I am curious about how a scientific fact is defined. Is this one area a consensus helps?
Moti Ben-Ari, in his book
Just A Theory - Exploring the Nature of Science, offers this...
A scientific observation becomes a fact when there is no longer any reason to doubt it. Thus, the report of the observation and its acceptance by the scientific community are part of what makes the observation a fact. The acceptance comes from the analysis of the report of the experimental or observational conditions; confirmation by independent observers, often using different techniques, is frequently carried out.
Since the consensus is based on the scientific method, then it makes sense. Though, of course, "fact" should not be considered an absolute.