Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad > absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion, > which goes something like this: "If you can't think of a specific way this > scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then it's not reasonable to > ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims." > Nope. As you say, that is reductio ad absurdum. I do not think my statement is vulnerable to that. The only valid statement starting with these premises would be: "If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions." You have to specify experimentalist, since the rules are slightly different for theory or observational science, medical science, and so on. All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed. Your pretend conclusion, ". . . it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims" is not valid because replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of experimental science, but not all the other branches. Here is a valid variation similar to what you proposed: "If no one can think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTALIST scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, after some number of years and despite many attempts, and after widespread replications, then it is no longer reasonable to ask for additional REPLICATION, because he and the others who replicated already proved the claims" That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. - Jed
