What effect would no new hypothesis and focusing ONLY on increased and improved testing and re-verification have on science and technology?

[fncceo]

So, let's say a man is convicted of a crime based on the best evidence available. Later on, DNA evidence clears him, except does not help us identify who actually did commit the crime. Do we need a better theory as to who committed the crime before we can release him from prison?

No. Because the standard of proof in Criminal Law is different from the standard of proof in science.

To convict someone of a crime, they must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". You don't need to prove someone else did the crime, only that the accused themselves didn't do it.

In science, however, the standard of truth is that explanation that best fits the available data. If there are two competing theories that both fit the available data, both are equally valid until one (or a yet to be discovered third) proves to be a better fit for the data.

In that way, the standard for truth in science is closer to the standard in Civil Law. In a Civil Case, you don't have to prove guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to a balance of probabilities. In a Civil Case, one side or the other wins by presenting the argument that best fits what is known about the case.

Another standard of truth is Theological truth. In Theology, a scriptural or oral tradition is true regardless of any evidence you may present that refutes it.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I referred to using chemotherapy to treat a hypothetical disease (not cancer) that it has been demonstrated to have no effect on because it "made sense" to people to think that it would at some point and it may have passed an initial test. The question is, must a better hypothesis be presented before abandoning the theory considering that the current treatment has no effect?

The hypothetical you propose doesn't make any sense.

Why would any doctor prescribe a treatment known to have dangerous side effects if there is absolutely no clinical data to show it has any benefit? Or without any theory as to how that treatment may benefit the patient. Any doctor who did so probably wouldn't be a doctor for long.

Consider leeches. They were prescribed for illnesses for a thousand years with no clinical data to support their efficacy. However, people believed they could treat their illnesses based on anecdotal evidence. That is belief, but it isn't science.

If your neighbor said that eating massive amounts of Taco Bell will cure herpes, would you consider yourself safe having unprotected sex if you ate a Taco Supreme before your date?

When we understood the body better, through first creating then proving (or disproving) new hypotheses, we understood what could treat our illnesses and a basic understanding of how they affected the body to do that.

I said the treatment passed initial testing. Maybe they had a small sample size or had other flaws in the initial studies or possibly the companies sponsoring the research manipulated the results. The question is, must a better cure be proposed before we stop using it?

If a theory is wrong, can we discard it without a better theory?

Doctors don't just prescribe chemotherapy for every cancer patient. If it's too far gone or your not considered fit enough. Every patient on chemo is given a blood test up to 72 hours before.
If your blood sugars or hemoglobin is down you don't receive it.
I've had 118 treatments over 6.5 years and I remember being told at the start that they were going to do away with chemo and use a new treatment that only attacked the cancer cells and not the healthy cells as chemo does hence the side affects. Should I have waited? Na I'd have been dead within three months.

 

[fncceo]

If people had previously thought that eating human feces cured the flu, I would not eat human feces simply because no better cure had been proposed.

To be fair, you know enough about infectious disease to know that eating feces, human or otherwise, is not only not going to cure your flu, it could introduce a host of other pathogens into your system.

However, without that knowledge, if enough people told you it was a cure, and they could point to countless cases where it worked as a cure, and your life were on the line, I suspect you would eat that feces without a side dish and go back for seconds.

Just look how many millions of people took the leech treatment because they believed completely, according to the most knowledgeable people at the time, it was a cure for whatever ailed you.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I referred to using chemotherapy to treat a hypothetical disease (not cancer) that it has been demonstrated to have no effect on because it "made sense" to people to think that it would at some point and it may have passed an initial test. The question is, must a better hypothesis be presented before abandoning the theory considering that the current treatment has no effect?

The hypothetical you propose doesn't make any sense.

Why would any doctor prescribe a treatment known to have dangerous side effects if there is absolutely no clinical data to show it has any benefit? Or without any theory as to how that treatment may benefit the patient. Any doctor who did so probably wouldn't be a doctor for long.

Consider leeches. They were prescribed for illnesses for a thousand years with no clinical data to support their efficacy. However, people believed they could treat their illnesses based on anecdotal evidence. That is belief, but it isn't science.

If your neighbor said that eating massive amounts of Taco Bell will cure herpes, would you consider yourself safe having unprotected sex if you ate a Taco Supreme before your date?

When we understood the body better, through first creating then proving (or disproving) new hypotheses, we understood what could treat our illnesses and a basic understanding of how they affected the body to do that.

Actually, leeches are back. I watched a doc. about using them for some infections. Apparently, they don't just suck up the infected blood but also absorb infected tissue. Many old remedies that had been dismissed have been found with more research to be beneficial.

 

[RandomPoster]

So, let's say a man is convicted of a crime based on the best evidence available. Later on, DNA evidence clears him, except does not help us identify who actually did commit the crime. Do we need a better theory as to who committed the crime before we can release him from prison?

No. Because the standard of proof in Criminal Law is different from the standard of proof in science.

To convict someone of a crime, they must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". You don't need to prove someone else did the crime, only that the accused themselves didn't do it.

In science, however, the standard of truth is that explanation that best fits the available data. If there are two competing theories that both fit the available data, both are equally valid until one (or a yet to be discovered third) proves to be a better fit for the data.

In that way, the standard for truth in science is closer to the standard in Civil Law. In a Civil Case, you don't have to prove guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to a balance of probabilities. In a Civil Case, one side or the other wins by presenting the argument that best fits what is known about the case.

Another standard of truth is Theological truth. In Theology, a scriptural or oral tradition is true regardless of any evidence you may present that refutes it.

So if a theory has been accepted, it can never be proven false

I referred to using chemotherapy to treat a hypothetical disease (not cancer) that it has been demonstrated to have no effect on because it "made sense" to people to think that it would at some point and it may have passed an initial test. The question is, must a better hypothesis be presented before abandoning the theory considering that the current treatment has no effect?

The hypothetical you propose doesn't make any sense.

Why would any doctor prescribe a treatment known to have dangerous side effects if there is absolutely no clinical data to show it has any benefit? Or without any theory as to how that treatment may benefit the patient. Any doctor who did so probably wouldn't be a doctor for long.

Consider leeches. They were prescribed for illnesses for a thousand years with no clinical data to support their efficacy. However, people believed they could treat their illnesses based on anecdotal evidence. That is belief, but it isn't science.

If your neighbor said that eating massive amounts of Taco Bell will cure herpes, would you consider yourself safe having unprotected sex if you ate a Taco Supreme before your date?

When we understood the body better, through first creating then proving (or disproving) new hypotheses, we understood what could treat our illnesses and a basic understanding of how they affected the body to do that.

I said the treatment passed initial testing. Maybe they had a small sample size or had other flaws in the initial studies or possibly the companies sponsoring the research manipulated the results. The question is, must a better cure be proposed before we stop using it?

If a theory is wrong, can we discard it without a better theory?

Doctors don't just prescribe chemotherapy for every cancer patient. If it's too far gone or your not considered fit enough. Every patient on chemo is given a blood test up to 72 hours before.
If your blood sugars or hemoglobin is down you don't receive it.
I've had 118 treatments over 6.5 years and I remember being told at the start that they were going to do away with chemo and use a new treatment that only attacked the cancer cells and not the healthy cells as chemo does hence the side affects. Should I have waited? Na I'd have been dead within three months.

I was talking about treating patients with a disease other than cancer with chemotherapy because it made sense at one time and it passed preliminary testing.

If people had previously thought that eating human feces cured the flu, I would not eat human feces simply because no better cure had been proposed.

To be fair, you know enough about infectious disease to know that eating feces, human or otherwise, is not only not going to cure your flu, it could introduce a host of other pathogens into your system.

However, without that knowledge, if enough people told you it was a cure, and they could point to countless cases where it worked as a cure, and your life were on the line, I suspect you would eat that feces without a side dish and go back for seconds.

Just look how many millions of people took the leech treatment because they believed completely, according to the most knowledgeable people at the time, it was a cure for whatever ailed you.

If an idea is wrong, it is wrong. If a Mathematical theorem is disproven, it is returned to the heap of unsolved problems. No better proof is required to disprove the previously accepted theorem. If a theory is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of whether or not anyone has a better theory.

 

[fncceo]

Apparently, they don't just suck up the infected blood but also absorb infected tissue.

We aren't rediscovering old medical knowledge, we are finding new uses for previously dismissed treatements.

In the past, leeches were used for a treatment called blood letting. They could take significant amounts of blood from a human without cutting. Cutting into human veins with dirty instruments (which was all instruments in the day) was more likely to cause infection than the leech.

A leech can't discriminate between "infected" blood or any other blood, they just suck blood. However, the leeches saliva contains anti-coagulants that can increase blood flow locally in post-surgical patients. Blood flow is critical to healing.

You can't give systemic anti-coagulants to a post-op patient because it will cause uncontrolled internal bleeding and kill the patient.

Another ancient treatment that is being used in limit situations is the use of maggots for treating burn patients. Maggots will eat necrotic (dead) flesh and leave living flesh untouched. That makes them a smart robot for debriding burns which, in the past, were scrubbed roughly to removed the dead flesh, an INCREDIBLY painful procedure.

 

[fncceo]

So if a theory has been accepted, it can never be proven false

That's what you read in what I wrote? I believe I said exactly the opposite. In science NO theory can be 100% proven true. There is always the chance that knew knowledge will change our understanding of the phenomenon and lead to a new working theory.

The path to scientific truth is a never-ending journey.

 

[fncceo]

If a theory is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of whether or not anyone has a better theory.

To prove something wrong, you have to show where it does not explain the observations.

However, you also have to prove that the new data that you claim disproves the previous theory isn't erroneous itself.

In mathematics, there are literally hundreds of theorem that have incomplete proof, or no proofs at all. There are an equally large number of accepted proofs that were later found to be incomplete or erroneous in themselves.

Mathematics is just as much in a state of flux as most other areas of Science.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

So if a theory has been accepted, it can never be proven false

That's what you read in what I wrote? I believe I said exactly the opposite. In science NO theory can been 100% proven true. There is always the chance that knew knowledge will change our understanding of the phenomenon and lead to a new working theory.

The path to scientific truth is a never-ending journey.

I have a new theory of 'light'. which unlike the presently accepted one actually fits observations.
Do you want to hear it? If yes I will post it in a new thread. If not I won't bother but don't say yes unless your prepared to be stunned and are genuinely interested.

 

[fncceo]

Do you want to hear it?

No.

If you want it heard, publish it for peer-review.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Do you want to hear it?

No.

If you want it heard, publish it for peer-review.

Disappointing, I must assume you obviously think it's crap!

I'm a man of the people and would prefer to publish it on social media to all and sundry.

Never mind my time here is very limited anyway.

 

[ReinyDays]

The OP doesn't seem to have a good grasp on scientific method ... it's a building process, baby step by baby step ... we take the results of our experiment and let that dictate our new experiment ... if the results of our second experiment is screwy, yes, we then check the results of our first experiment ... back and forth until we cipher out the confusing results ...

The example he's using is quite flawed ... someone publishes a small study that drug XYZ is effective in treating disease ABC ... that's not going to get FDA approval ... years of clinical trials and heavy research into the effect before this reaches the doctor's tool box ... and repeating these trials over and over just to make sure ...

We do have journals known as "paper mills" ... places where folks can get published so they can get their Master's Degree ... this research is generally never tested or confirmed so who knows if the information is valid or not ... until years later someone picks it up and tries to take a step further and things don't work out ... but then these folks publish their findings and the chain continues ...

The papers that report important results are going to be checked right away ... if someone says they found the cure for all forms of diabetes ... there's going to be three dozen labs working on this result, confirming the experiment, applying for trials, getting engineers working on manufacturing ... on the other hand, if you're publishing a link between house cat bites and chronic depression, at best you'll get an Iggy ...

What problem are we solving by placing a moratorium on new research? ...

 

[james bond]

It would definately put a damper on the Progressive movement as most of their science isnt based on "FACTS".

I agree and it may not just be Progressives. Most of the hypotheses are BS and stupid stuff is part of science that scientists accept. Just look at the nerds who get into science.

It may lead to triggering something else that proves to be incredible, so even something that doesn't sound right could be allowed. Short of someone just finding something and another dismissing it outright based on scientific principles.

Most Stupid (???!!!???!!!)

Top 10 Craziest Environmental Ideas

Ten of the most outlandish and implausible concepts that just might save our world.

www.livescience.com

Most Wrong

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn't stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important...

www.toptenz.net

Most Disturbing

The Ten Most Disturbing Scientific Discoveries

Scientists have come to some surprising conclusions about the world and our place in it. Are some things just better left unknown?

www.smithsonianmag.com

Most Dangerous

10 Most Dangerous Scientific Experiments in History

The times in history when science was deadly and dangerous.

bigthink.com

 

[RandomPoster]

The OP doesn't seem to have a good grasp on scientific method ... it's a building process, baby step by baby step ... we take the results of our experiment and let that dictate our new experiment ... if the results of our second experiment is screwy, yes, we then check the results of our first experiment ... back and forth until we cipher out the confusing results ...

The example he's using is quite flawed ... someone publishes a small study that drug XYZ is effective in treating disease ABC ... that's not going to get FDA approval ... years of clinical trials and heavy research into the effect before this reaches the doctor's tool box ... and repeating these trials over and over just to make sure ...

We do have journals known as "paper mills" ... places where folks can get published so they can get their Master's Degree ... this research is generally never tested or confirmed so who knows if the information is valid or not ... until years later someone picks it up and tries to take a step further and things don't work out ... but then these folks publish their findings and the chain continues ...

The papers that report important results are going to be checked right away ... if someone says they found the cure for all forms of diabetes ... there's going to be three dozen labs working on this result, confirming the experiment, applying for trials, getting engineers working on manufacturing ... on the other hand, if you're publishing a link between house cat bites and chronic depression, at best you'll get an Iggy ...

What problem are we solving by placing a moratorium on new research? ...

In a recent study, only 23% of science experiments replicated. When no one from the original team was involved in the replication attempt, the percentage was in the single digits.

The-Replication-Crisis-in-Psychology.pdf (rebus.community)

Another study found that only 1.6% of published results in Education Psychology are replication attempts. Why not make it 100% of all experiments for the next 20 years will be replication attempts?

Also, is it your stance that we can not abandon a cure for a disease even if we know it is completely ineffective without a better cure? Can a mathematical theorem be disproven without an alternative proof being provided? What if the first proof actually is wrong? Do we have to pretend it is correct until we have a better proof or can we simply say the problem hasn't been solved yet?

If there is an unexplained phenomenon in Nature and scientists thought they had solved it, except it turns out they were wrong, they can't simply say "we were wrong" and regard the problem as unsolved for the time being? If not, why not?

 

[ReinyDays]

In a recent study, only 23% of science experiments replicated. When no one from the original team was involved in the replication attempt, the percentage was in the single digits.

The-Replication-Crisis-in-Psychology.pdf (rebus.community)

Another study found that only 1.6% of published results in Education Psychology are replication attempts. Why not make it 100% of all experiments for the next 20 years will be replication attempts?

Also, is it your stance that we can not abandon a cure for a disease even if we know it is completely ineffective without a better cure? Can a mathematical theorem be disproven without an alternative proof being provided? What if the first proof actually is wrong? Do we have to pretend it is correct until we have a better proof or can we simply say the problem hasn't been solved yet?

If there is an unexplained phenomenon in Nature and scientists thought they had solved it, except it turns out they were wrong, they can't simply say "we were wrong" and regard the problem as unsolved for the time being? If not, why not?

A lot to unpack here ...

It's not a cure if it's ineffective ... you speak in paradoxes ... my stance on impossible things is that they are impossible ... I don't know why you've spun yourself outside the bounds of reality here, but you need to somehow re-ground your arguments ... by the same logic, we don't disprove mathematical theorems ... to be a theorem, it has to be proven, otherwise it's conjecture ... if the first proof is wrong, then it's not proof ... more paradoxes ...

You need to start attaching examples to your claims ... your hypotheticals are making no sense ... post a link to an actual scientific paper that offends you ... and explain why it offends ... more nonsense to stop all scientific advancements and all post-graduate work for 20 years to replay stuff no one cares about ... who pays? ...

 

[RandomPoster]

In a recent study, only 23% of science experiments replicated. When no one from the original team was involved in the replication attempt, the percentage was in the single digits.

The-Replication-Crisis-in-Psychology.pdf (rebus.community)

Another study found that only 1.6% of published results in Education Psychology are replication attempts. Why not make it 100% of all experiments for the next 20 years will be replication attempts?

Also, is it your stance that we can not abandon a cure for a disease even if we know it is completely ineffective without a better cure? Can a mathematical theorem be disproven without an alternative proof being provided? What if the first proof actually is wrong? Do we have to pretend it is correct until we have a better proof or can we simply say the problem hasn't been solved yet?

If there is an unexplained phenomenon in Nature and scientists thought they had solved it, except it turns out they were wrong, they can't simply say "we were wrong" and regard the problem as unsolved for the time being? If not, why not?

A lot to unpack here ...

It's not a cure if it's ineffective ... you speak in paradoxes ... my stance on impossible things is that they are impossible ... I don't know why you've spun yourself outside the bounds of reality here, but you need to somehow re-ground your arguments ... by the same logic, we don't disprove mathematical theorems ... to be a theorem, it has to be proven, otherwise it's conjecture ... if the first proof is wrong, then it's not proof ... more paradoxes ...

You need to start attaching examples to your claims ... your hypotheticals are making no sense ... post a link to an actual scientific paper that offends you ... and explain why it offends ... more nonsense to stop all scientific advancements and all post-graduate work for 20 years to replay stuff no one cares about ... who pays? ...

Many medications were thought to be cures and later turned to be completely ineffective. They were abandoned even though no other candidate cure was available at the time.

" A "theorem" of Jan-Erik Roos in 1961 stated that in an [AB4*] abelian category, lim1 vanishes on Mittag-Leffler sequences. This "theorem" was used by many people since then, but it was disproved by counterexample in 2002 by Amnon Neeman."

So much for your claim that mathematical theorems that were thought to be proven are never disproven.

If a theory is wrong, it is wrong whether a better theory has been proposed or not.

 

[ReinyDays]

Many medications were thought to be cures and later turned to be completely ineffective. They were abandoned even though no other candidate cure was available at the time.

" A "theorem" of Jan-Erik Roos in 1961 stated that in an [AB4*] abelian category, lim1 vanishes on Mittag-Leffler sequences. This "theorem" was used by many people since then, but it was disproved by counterexample in 2002 by Amnon Neeman."

So much for your claim that mathematical theorems that were thought to be proven are never disproven.

If a theory is wrong, it is wrong whether a better theory has been proposed or not.

Please give an example of a medication that passed Phase III Clinical trials that was found later to be ineffective for what it was approved for ... a medication that honestly pass Phase III trials ... I understand Big Pharm lies and throw worthless medicine out there to recoup research costs ... but that's criminal fraud, not science ...

It's sad that not a single one of the citations to the mathematical claim actually address the subject, one of which is blank, you gave a blank citation ... you just made all that up ... non-communitive rings are above my pay grade ... no way do I believe you know the difference between a ring and an algebra ...

See how the Inventiones Mathematicae article uses quotation marks around the terms "theorum" ... that means it's a conjecture, not proven ... did you pay the $40 and read the article? ... pfffft ... anyway, here's the latest developments "Homological Mirror Symmetry for Generalized Greene-Plesser Mirrors" ... see how this refutes your claims completely? ...