4 ms·

I'm on LIGO's side on this one, but I disagree that one must be able to offer an alternative explanation in order to claim a result is bogus. That is, I don't n

I'm on LIGO's side on this one, but I disagree that one must be able to offer an alternative explanation in order to claim a result is bogus. That is, I don't need an alternate theory in order to falsify yours. Again, to be clear: I think the LIGO results are probably correct. There's a bunch of corroborating evidence, and from the outside it appears they've been acting is very much good faith. I'm just making an epistemology quibble.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Agreed: the scientific community is supposed to havea consensus on [Popperian] falsificationism but seem to act like they don't really believe it quite often.
- no_identd 8y ago
  > the scientific community is supposed to havea consensus on [Popperian] falsificationism You couldn't have it more wrong. See here, with more physics relevant points: http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/3/3/611 http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/3/3/611 [PDF only] And here with more science relevant points: http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/2/4/635/htm http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/2/4/635/htm [Different article, mobile friendly]
CamperBob2 8y ago
That is, I don't need an alternate theory in order to falsify yours. I phrased that poorly: what the critics need to explain is the apparent agreement between the prior model and the observations. It wasn't just a case where someone looked at an oscilloscope screen and said, "Whoa. Look at that. Aliens!" As I understand it, the LIGO results showed good conformance to their predictions. Does that make their position completely bulletproof? No, nothing in science ever is, but it does place Jackson's dispute into the category of "extraordinary claims."