On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:51 AM, Louis Talman <email@example.com> wrote: > > 1. You seem to be suggesting that the Proceedings of the National Academy > of Science is a third-rate journal. > > > Because it publishes research that can be refuted? >
Historically, the conclusions of a great deal of research has been falsified. And even the best journals publish such research, because that's how science works.
> > > 2. You seem to be suggesting that you can "fry" someone else's conclusions > without showing that they aren't repeatable. > > > Results are repeatable (or not repeatable). Conclusions are checked for > reasonableness. > > I fried it on reasonableness. > > No, you say you have fried it because *you* find it unreasonable. Conclusions are checked by demonstrating that they lead to false predictions. You haven't performed an experiment that falsifies the conclusion.
You make a great deal of comparing certain conclusions with the cold fusion example. But cold fusion was discredited by attempts to replicate the phenomenon, and no good scientist was willing to say that cold fusion was wrong until it was demonstrated to be unreproducible.
The conclusions and predictions of quantum mechanics are, as you yourself pointed out, unreasonable, and easily refuted on that basis. But the experiments are reliably reproducible. The unreasonable conclusions provide the best explanations (so far) for the effects, and the predictions have proved useful.
And there are quite a few papers in quite a few excellent journals that will prove to have been refuted if a better model is developed.
If you want to "fry" somebody's conclusions, do an experiment that fries them. Simply saying that the conclusions aren't reasonable because you disagree with them, or because you think the experimenter's purposes are shady, doesn't "fry" a slab of bacon.
The experiments reported here, and the model suggested, agree well with experiments reported by S. Dehaene in "The Number Sense". (And, it is worth noting, none of the experimenters in either case is a member of Haim's rather amorphous and ill-defined "Education Mafia"---contrary to your innuendoes.)
--Louis A. Talman Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Metropolitan State College of Denver