Testing For True Science

A Response to the TED "Good and Bad Science" Criteria

Marc Gauvin

Copyright (c) 06102013

Reproduction in full expressly granted provided original attribution and link is given

The only true criterion for testing the validity of claims is that they can be tested and verified.   Given this first criterion the rest is irrelevant.  Furthermore,  science doesn't "convince" it proves or disproves.  A great misconception is that peer review is a voting process it is not anything of the sort, no matter the number of peers the only valid review is one that produces a counter proof that meets the same criteria of evaluation that the reviewers require from the claim.  

To give you an idea of more constructive criteria for evaluating validity in science by anyone who knows how to reason consider the following:  

Generally,  the difficulty is in uncovering truths not in demonstrating them once uncovered.  If you park a bike up against a tree where people have never used wheels before, it will take a genius among them to discover how to use the bike,  but then a week later practically anyone can readily demonstrate that use.   

Beware of scientists who deny another's claim with "it is too complicated to explain" or "he/she has not convinced me",   this is the true mark of poor science and incompetence,  used too often to push so much bad science on us like: "nuclear energy is safe" among other examples. It is such dismal and slipshod science that has brought us many of modern day technological nightmares.

A legitimate counter claim always states the error up front in a clear unambiguous statement with a formal proof that the counter claimer is willing to go public with.  Also, a nonsense claim should generate essentially the same key counter claim from more than one independent expert,  if such is not forthcoming then it is a sign that the original claim is likely to be of some interest.  For example,  if the claim generates contradictory counter claims form independent experts then there is a good chance you are onto a really powerful scoop.

Any logic is verifiable irrespective of the topic (Socratic method i.e. I do not know,  but I can certainly prove that your argument doesn't follow) which means that given sound logic,  the underlying axioms and/or natural law are the only real test.  Thus, all good science bases its logic and exposition on indisputable axioms and premises otherwise the claim is like putting the cart before the horse. 

Also and in the case one may suspect some generalised bias against an original thesis, obtaining independent publishable statements regarding the validity or invalidity of premises is a good test without risking giving away the plot entirely.

A sign of valid original work,  is where the proponent uses a premise that has never been used before but that is irrefutable. Here at www.bibocurrency.com, we have done just that (see here) making the observation that the problem of money control falls under a classification of systems engineering that has been amply tested and proven in digital technology. 

Anyone incapable or unwilling to undertake the above should not be deciding on the validity of proposals.  All are human, mainstream scientists included and in our unbalanced world of disproportionate money power it is naive to assume that there exists a Mecca of indisputable "objective" authority in any domain.  But logic and maths aren't biased that is why a scientists' "science" mainstream or not,  is as good as the logic and maths they are willing to publish in their name.  

In the case of the NIST 9/11 report on WTC 7, it was the math and science that forced them to recant on the insinuated absence of free-fall,  see this independent work of a high school physics teacher,  can you judge for yourself which of the two are more credible?

Additional information