Science

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 01:08 PM 12/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>>> Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk 12/07/00 12:57PM >>>
>In message <p0433010bb6543f7441fe@[216.254.77.128]>, Doug Henwood
><dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>>Actually I thought the consensus among scientists on both AIDS and 
>>global warming was pretty strong. There aren't that many dissenters, 
>>are there?
>
>The 'consensus' on anthropic global warming was achieved through
>political fiat, most of the scientists signing the Kyoto declaration,
>not being experts in climate. 
>
>Science is not decided by consensus. As Einstein said when a book was
>published 'Fifty Authors Refute Relativity', he said 'Why fifty, it
>ought to only take one?'
>
>((((((((((((
>
>CB: Isn't something of a social standard implied in the requirement of
repeatability of results for experiments ?

Yes, there is.  Imre Lakatos (_The Methodology of Scientific Research
Programmes_, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) argues that
theories are seldom refuted by contradicting evidence alone.  There is too
much social stakes vested in a theory to let the mere facts decide its
fate.  Should contradicting evidence emerges, it is neutralized by what
Lakatos calls "problemshifts" or semantinc devices to save the theory from
refutation.  The theory os refuted and replaced with a new one only when
the cabal of scientists so decides.

So yes, contrary to the falsificationist view espoused by Einstein, it
takes more than one scientist to 'refute' a theory.

wojtek