Comment Re:Congressional Investigation over Paper Authorsh (Score 1) 154
>>"Likewise, we know that the 17 keV neutrino does NOT exist, and the experiments that proved it were designed in the manner of all such: they demonstrated that A=>B, and then showed !B, and therefore !A by modus tollens"
I don't understand. If you want to prove the non-existence of A using A=>B by showing !B, how in the hell will you know that A=>B is true if you don't even had a handle of A? You got to make people believe that A=>B based on real experiments. But if you ask to people to assume A=>B is true hypothetically, and showed B!, your conclusion that !A is also hypothetical. That means this kind of proof is based on the strength of A=>B, but you don't even know what it would be really like, experimentally, if A is, because you don't have A in the first place!
As any honest statistician would say, experiments does NOT prove. It just just gives you the evidence to support or not support your hypothesis. As George Box said: "All models are wrong but some models are useful". Experimental results just strengthen or weaken hypotheses. Proof is a stronger word. It carries the power of absolute certainty (probability of 1) which only exists in idealistic disciplines as mathematics and logic. In science, even in physics, I don't think so! Well Newton's laws held well within the range of our sensations and only under certain conditions with some probability of error. But at quantum or cosmic level, it won't do it. Nature is essentially an stochastic process, some can be modelled to an acceptable level of certainty, but never in absolute level.
I don't understand. If you want to prove the non-existence of A using A=>B by showing !B, how in the hell will you know that A=>B is true if you don't even had a handle of A? You got to make people believe that A=>B based on real experiments. But if you ask to people to assume A=>B is true hypothetically, and showed B!, your conclusion that !A is also hypothetical. That means this kind of proof is based on the strength of A=>B, but you don't even know what it would be really like, experimentally, if A is, because you don't have A in the first place!
As any honest statistician would say, experiments does NOT prove. It just just gives you the evidence to support or not support your hypothesis. As George Box said: "All models are wrong but some models are useful". Experimental results just strengthen or weaken hypotheses. Proof is a stronger word. It carries the power of absolute certainty (probability of 1) which only exists in idealistic disciplines as mathematics and logic. In science, even in physics, I don't think so! Well Newton's laws held well within the range of our sensations and only under certain conditions with some probability of error. But at quantum or cosmic level, it won't do it. Nature is essentially an stochastic process, some can be modelled to an acceptable level of certainty, but never in absolute level.
