On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to change the thread title because of the way Google mail works . . > . Let me change it to something Schwinger said to Melich. > > Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > > is that F****G mania to focus on THEORY... >> >> > NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT >> >> Ditto and likewise. >> >> As Einstein wrote : Experimentum summus judex (Experiment is the supreme >> judge) >> > > As Schwinger said, regarding cold fusion: "have we forgotten that physics > are empirical?" > > > It does not bother me so much when skeptics disagree and insist that we > must have a theory before they will accept the findings. What irks me is > when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer > or McKubre and they assume these people are proposing a theory. Or they > assume these people are making promises of jam tomorrow. > > Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says: > "there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes > take place in the metal alloys." > > Suppose Gibbs were to say: "I get it. I understand why Gerischer reached > that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of a nuclear > reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that conclusion. However, > I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be > sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a > theory." > > I would say: "Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in > textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many important > scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you." > > You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is > you are disagreeing with. > > Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a book > written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject accurately in great > detail: "Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for students of biology . . ." > by William Ernest Castle and Gregor Mendel. The author frequently points > out that he has no physical theory to explain any of this, and it is > entirely observational. He can prove there are genes, and that some are on > one chromosome and some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by > observation and logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in > 1916 would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic > information (DNA). > > - Jed > > Observation drives theory, always. I don't get this Gibbs character denying that. He may have a right to an opinion, but the logical underpinnings of the scientific method are facts of the process, not opinions! The way it should be couched, imo, is, here is the observations, here is the FACTS of what is happening. Care to help us come up with the theory?
