|
|
Re: Of Interest
Posted:
Oct 30, 2012 12:23 PM
|
|
|
|
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:51 AM, Louis Talman <talmanl@gmail.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
<http://rowdy.mscd.edu/%7Etalmanl>
|
|
