tom wrote:They are not very constructive the rules that you quote!
Yeah, but there, it's a bit of a hospital that doesn't care about charity ...
These are not rules! I'm just quoting things that have no value in scientific reasoning ...
And everything we can read on this forum put both feet in it ...
Okay, I'm going ...
To find out how to establish real scientific reasoning, start by obtaining Descartes' book: "Discourse on Method", which even if it is no longer suitable today remains an excellent basis.
In all circumstances, only reasoning based on substantiated argument can be scientifically accepted, involving only concepts accepted in the same way.
Something admitted must be verifiable, either by direct observation or by indirect observation, which then implies that it can be demonstrated that the indirect observation carried out cannot result from a phenomenon other than that which the we seek to observe.
Concrete example: cold fusion ... If we detect an abnormally high neutron field in a chemical reaction, before concluding that it is cold fusion, we must be able to prove - always in the context of indirect observation - that it does not come from elsewhere ... And this is the reason why theories on cold fusion are stagnating nowadays (no, nothing has been proven, these are only avenues of research that have been opened)...
If a guy shows up and says "I invented a cold fusion engine", throw stones at him, because he's an idiot ... He may have invented something superunitary, but he has no right to say it's cold fusion!
If he wants his invention to be recognized, it must be reproducible
et show that the energy source is not identifiable...
If he cannot explain what is going on, then he has the right to make assumptions.
Once the hypothesis has been issued, a method must be described allowing it to be tested, remembering to refer to the work of its predecessor when it is used.
It is essential to describe the entire experience! What we have, what comes in, what comes out, what dissipates, what we measure and what we don't measure and why ... We must also be able to indicate what are the limits of experience .
Then publish the method and the results, which in turn must be reproducible so that others can put it to the test. Do not try to demonstrate an experience or result that cannot be reproduced.
And at that time, we conclude that the hypothesis is valid or not.
We can also directly start from a theory to verify it, but here, the bibliography takes precedence. We do not tire of experimenting with a theory that does not exclusively refer to other accepted theories.
If you lack the underlying theories, it's up to you to demonstrate them on the same principle before using them.
Once the theory has been written, we put it to the test through experience, and we check that the results are consistent.
This is scientific reasoning ...
Small note all the same, modern disciplines, like quantum physics by its very nature imply different methods, in particular a study of probability, and this is the reason why it is still refused by part of the scientific community. It is because of this parameter that "holodynamics" exists ... Einstein himself said god does not day soon ... However, the laws of quantum physics are extraordinarily precise ... If quantum physics predicts that a quanta will have such a chance to be in such a state, you can experiment as many millions of times as you want, the result will always agree with the theory ... but there is no has no determinism ...
Example: the Higgs boson ... currently, if it is detected, there is a probability close to 7% that its indirect observation is the consequence of a different phenomenon ... This result could not be accepted with such a proba. It would however be admitted with a proba of the order of 10e-6% (I do not know however why this value there ... it requires some research).
Someone who reasons like that deserves the respect of the scientific community, even if he gets confused (cf. culture note 2 paragraph below).
But "So-and-so has seen the machine turn, it's irrefutable proof that it works", that's the most pitiful thing that can be served to us ...
Without messing around, make no amalgamation between knowledge and science ... Science is above all a method. Knowledge is the conclusions that can be reached with this method.
For culture, I recommend that you document yourself on the experience of Michelson and Morley, relating to what we called at the time Ether ... It is probably the most beautiful of the negative experiences ever carried out. .
I think this will be my last post on the subject, because for me, everything is now said ...
I respect the curious, but I despise those who prove to you that they are going to revolutionize the world by claiming to have discovered new energies with only proof with the support of the patents and videos youtube ...
You imagine if on a thesis or a dissertation I made a biblio based on youtube link? I think the reading committee will reward me with a handful of well-deserved peanuts!