When the inquiry is in response to someone else's claim, I would mostly, but not totally, agree. Sometimes a claim, even if it may sound odd or spurious, can stimulate someone to a path of inquiry that ultimately ends in new discovery. And, as I know has been brought up previoiusly, to blanket-apply an arbritrary rule that says, essentially, if you don't meet whatever I (or somebody else) define as the "burden of proof", we will all deem your idea as moronic and unworthy would seem, at least in a historical context, to have precluded some of the great scientific lines of inquiry. But I certainly see your point.
Indeed, science does not require one to follow all leads---vetting what one believes is reasonable, vs. what is not, is appropriate---if for nothing else but time management. But, the *original* (which is what I really should have emphasized, in my first reply) researcher, working in his/her lab, isn't necessarily responding to someone else's need to convince him that something is or is not "worthwhile" to pursue, nor is he attempting to prove or disprove someone else's theory(s). So, in that case, the burden of proof is not in the decision as to whether or not to pursue the inquiry, but in the proving of the results of the inquiry, itself. At that point, it most certainly is matter of others verifying and replicating your results. But--again, at the origin of an idea, to simply not try an experiment because you have an unfounded expectation that it won't work does, potentially, cut off what might otherwise have been a productive line of inquiry. Soulkeeper wrote: > I'm not a scientist, but I like to think that I know a thing or two > about the process and standards of science, so here goes: > > Some homeopaths seem to demand that genuine medicine researchers spend > all their time trying to support the homeopaths claims about homeopathy. > But the vast majority of medicine researchers are not interested in > doing that, because they feel homeopathy has had its chance, and failed, > and they've got better things to spend their time on. > > Is it reasonable to say that this means that the vast majority of > medicine researchers are being unscientific? I don't think so. > Scientific inquiry doesn't require you to follow all leads. Only those > who seem worthwhile. > > What seems worthwhile to me may not seem worthwhile to you, and vice > versa. But if *you* think it is worthwhile, then it's up to *you* to > come up with some objective studies that can convince *me* to use *my* > time to confirm or refute your findings. Unsubstantiated claims like > "this quantum pebble placed on my speakers magically made the sound 1000 > times better" are simply not convincing. (I won't go into details about > the reasons why it is not convincing, that is, unless you insist.) > > Not being convinced by specious claims is simply not unscientific, and I > think claiming the opposite represents a straw man version of the > standards of science. > > > > Not unless a convincingly executed double blind tests says there is a > difference. Then it would be inconsistent to refuse to (provisionally) > accept the results without conducting your own double blind test of > equal or better quality. > > But -if the original claim is not backed up by a double blind test to > begin with, refusing to spend time on doing your own double blind test > would not be inconsistent-. And if you think it is, you should probably > read up on the concept of 'burden of proof' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). (The > Wikipedia article is short, but the 'Internet is big' > (https://www.google.com/search?q=burden+of+proof).) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
