Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (597946)	1/13/2011 4:47:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575450

An experiment is verified by repeating the same experiment, not necessarily the conclusion (or more correctly the hypothesis). The repetition of the experiment shows that the experiment in question consistently produces the expected results. But producing the expected results doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis. Often new types of experiments are needed, in addition to repetition of the old ones, to actually solidly support the hypothesis. None of which has anything to do with whether a "legitimate scientist" would make a statement like the one I made, but the idea that no legitimate scientist would do so is rather silly. A legitimate scientist develops a hypothesis which can be confirmed or denied, not one that is going to automatically be confirmed. If the experiment would be considered to be proof of the hypothesis, no matter what result it gave, than it tests nothing, even if it is repeated. To think that the result of the experiment doesn't matter, that merely doing and then repeating the experiment somehow confirms the hypothesis, whatever the results, is bizarre, and has no connection to the scientific method.