Scientifice Method And Quintessence

[G Anthony Kent]

The scientific method requires scientists and all others who claim to think rationally to answer knotty questions by means of experiment. In order to do this effectively, one must formulate a hypothesis, a statement of the putative principle that engages all the known implications. These implications must be rather direct. Circumstantial consequences are just that - circumstantial and cannot PROVE a hypothesis. Those better former implications must suggest experiments that will verify them or not. It is good if there are subservient implications of the hypothesis. It is better if a complete and utter negative statement of the hypothesis can be formulated. Then, the net sum of the original hypothesis and the negative hypothesis should be zero. Logically, the negative completely cancels the positive hypothesis. This negative hypothesis is called the "null" hypothesis because it would nullify the other if it proves to be true and it would tend to validate the positive hypothesis, at least it would fail to PROVE it false, if it was shown to be false in any way. Then, if direct evidence can be found that tends to corroborate the original positive hypothesis, we can begin to regard it as a good logical beginning. THEN, if this positive hypothesis can be combined with statements that have already been proven and the combined implications can be verified, we have the beginnings of proof.

 

The key to this process is our ability to form an experimentally testable Null Hypothesis. The evidence FOR the positive statement of the hypothesis is insufficient in itself because circumstances may combine to fool our little experiments. We are human. If an appropriate robust Null Hypothesis cannot be formulated, the original hypothesis is unsuitable to merit the attention of the scientist.

 

This is relevant to the debate about Dark Energy, quintessence and Dark Matter.

 

To call one's self a scientist, one must respect the scientific method. It is not a scientist's dogma any more than is it such to follow a firefighter's code; one must respect the power of fire - or else you die.

 

An unfalsifiable hypothesis has no business occupying the time of the scientist. Whole theories have often been constructed from unfalsifiable hypotheses. Such theories are often fun to think about, even edifying and inspiring - but they certainly are not science.

 

There is a place for faith. But, if a person of faith needs experimental proof, he will have little of either. We all need faith. We all use faith in some way. In times of trouble and sorrow, sometimes it is all we have. God loves us, we believe. Our belief makes it so. If we can say sincerely that a principle of human conduct or relations should be true, then it is. Human reality is what we can say it should be. This is called Primary Christian Existentialism. All men and women of faith are Christian existentialists.

 

All scientists hew to a code of honor as well as to the scientific method. Truth is not just a buzzword. Truth is meaning. Truth is the scientist's life. Truth is noble.

 

In a very real sense, to the scientist, "Truth" is the next best thing to God.

[coldcreation]

There is a place for faith. But, if a person of faith needs experimental proof, he will have little of either. We all need faith. We all use faith in some way. In times of trouble and sorrow, sometimes it is all we have. God loves us, we believe. Our belief makes it so. If we can say sincerely that a principle of human conduct or relations should be true, then it is. Human reality is what we can say it should be. This is called Primary Christian Existentialism. All men and women of faith are Christian existentialists. [...]

 

In a very real sense, to the scientist, "Truth" is the next best thing to God.[/size][/size]

 

Frankly speaking, this has NOTHING to do with science. Not the least with cosmology or astronomy.

 

 

PS As far as the rest of your post goes, it's comes off as ranting and raving.

 

 

 

 

CC

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Gary. :)

 

I think your short essay – for lack of a better description – is well written, and I agree with most of the opinions stated.

 

I’ve a couple of criticism, intended to suggest improvements:

• You describe the role of hypotheses and their experimental testing, especially the importance that a hypothesis be falsifiable (to use the term popularized by Popper), well. However, the only mention I find of the important concept of a scientific theory is the phrase “a statement of the putative principle” and one use of the word “theory.”
  I think this emphasis poorly describes the general feel and focus of science, in which theory is of central importance.
  
• You give a reasonable and common – though by no means uncontroversial or by wide consensus accepted – apologia for faith in general, and specifically in the existence of and loving nature of God, then state “This is called Primary Christian Existentialism”. However, via a google search, the only reference to this phrase I find is in this thread, so it appears that the belief you outline is called this only by you. Because a passive voice statement of the form “this is called ...” implies widespread use of a term, your use of it here seems to me disingenuous.
  You would do better, I think, to use “I call this ...”, and explain why you do, perhaps making reference to previous used of similar terms, like Kierkegaard’s Christian Existentialism.
  
• You state “whole theories have often been constructed from unfalsifiable hypotheses”. I agree, and think this is well and at length shown in popular science books such as Lee Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics. To a reader unfamiliar with this idea and explanations of it such as Smolin’s, however, your statement appears unsupported.
  You would do better, I think, to provide brief examples, from, say, string theory.
  

I’d hazard a guess, from you mention of “the debate about Dark Energy, quintessence and Dark Matter” and some posts you’ve made at other science forums, that you are skeptical of mainstream cosmological conclusions that simple General Relativistic explanations of the apparently observed large scale motion of the universe are unsatisfactory. Based on my personal experience as someone generally lacking an understanding of the actual formalism of the physics informing this consensus, I caution you to spend sufficient effort acquiring these skills before assaulting the theoretical position of people who have. The most credible critics of a given theory are those who clearly understand it well, and can demonstrate this understanding by using it to make precise predictions. People who can’t most often appear, to serious science enthusiasts like me and many hypography readers and posters, to be arguing from the fallacious position “I don’t understand this, so it must be wrong”.