3 ms·
In the general case no, you don't need to present an alternative theory to proove that a given existing theory is flawed or not self consistent or not consisten
by jobigoud 8y ago
In the general case no, you don't need to present an alternative theory to proove that a given existing theory is flawed or not self consistent or not consistent with observed data.
- CamperBob2 8y agoTrue enough in the general case as you say, but in this specific case, the data in question was (reportedly) a good fit for a pre-existing model. They made a prediction, ran an experiment, observed the predicted effect, drew a conclusion, and got a Nobel for their trouble. So the burden of proof is decisively on the accuser here, I'd think.