Jonah Thomas jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
>
>> According to standard scientific method, when considering the
>> merits of the failings in the language hypothesis, the null
>> hypothesis is all other explanations, known and unknown,
>> combined. Thus the historical accident hypothesis is a proper
>> subset of the null hypothesis alternative to the failings in
>> the language hypothesis. This is why the argument that there
>> is no other hypothesis and therefor the failings in the language
>> hypothesis must be correct is an invalid argument.
>
> But this is not the way science is actually done.
>
> Consider the following widespread scientific argument:
>
> Quantum mechanics always returns the correct answer for every scientific
> experiment.
>
> With no fudge factors or error bars, QM sometimes provides the correct
> answer to 20 decimal points. And it never ever fails.
>
> Therefore QM is correct and any alternative must be wrong.
>
>
> This argument is often made, minor variations on it are (in my
> experience) made whenever and wherever someone suggests that there might
> be an alternative to QM. This is how science is actually done, as
> opposed to standard scientific method.
As a physicist, I can't let that pass. I don't believe I've ever
encountered a working physicist who used that argument.
I'll grant that physicists sometimes say things that might sound like that
to a non-physicist, when what they are actually saying is
"My estimate of the chances of my finding a better alternative to QM is
low enough that I won't spend my time trying, nor would I advise my
students or colleagues to spend their time on that. There are better
problems to work on."
They never mean "It is certain that no one will ever find a better
alternative to QM."
cheers cgm
|
