View Single Post
  #11  
Old January 13th 10, 01:10 AM posted to sci.physics.research,sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default "Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

How do you know it was one of the authors?


The author identified himself/herself as an author without saying
exactly which one. Do you require further explanation?


No.

But if a theory makes a definitive prediction, and then this prediction
is ruled out by reasoning in which no-one can point to any logical gaps,
then the originator of that theory should acknowledge this and move on,
and not continue to cite some
obscure/outdated/crackpot/not-taken-seriously-for-other-reasons
reference in support of his discredited theory, but should acknowledge
defeat and move on (like, say, Bondi and Morrison after the steady-state
cosmology was ruled out). Right?


NO! You do NOT rule out a definitive prediction with "reasoning",
which has a long and well-known historical record of malfunction. You
let NATURE falsify or verify the prediction EMPIRICALLY. Do I make
myself clear enough on this point?


No. There are no "bare facts". By reasoning I mean constructing a
theory which makes predictions different from those of the first theory
and having these predictions confirmed by observation. In other words,
by reasoning that the first theory predicts something, and another
theory predicts something else, and it is something else which is
observed.

If the prediction is falsified empirically in a definitive manner,
then and only then should the author accept nature's verdict, and
further, not resort to smoke, mirrors, "adjustments" to the theory,
mendacity, etc.


Yes, but "falsified empirically" implies some reasoning about what the
theory predicts.