From 'Not Wrong' To (Maybe) Right - How Ignoring Glaring Problems Can Sometimes Lead To Fruitful Theories.

Frank Wilczek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/428261a

IF: 64.8

2004-01-01

Nature

Abstract:This is a short, light spirited account of how some possibly important science actually happened. It very much conflicts with Popper's contention that the key to scientific progress is falsification.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

From "Not Wrong" to (Maybe) Right

Frank Wilczek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/428261a

2004-03-24

Abstract:This is a short, light spirited account of how some possibly important science actually happened. It very much conflicts with Popper's contention that the key to scientific progress is falsification.

History and Philosophy of Physics,High Energy Physics - Phenomenology,Popular Physics
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

Imre Lakatos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14

1976-01-01

Abstract:For centuries knowledge meant proven knowledge — proven either by the power of the intellect or by the evidence of the senses. Wisdom and intellectual integrity demanded that one must desist from unproven utterances and minimize, even in thought, the gap between speculation and established knowledge. The proving power of the intellect or the senses was questioned by the sceptics more than two thousand years ago; but they were browbeaten into confusion by the glory of Newtonian physics. Einstein’s results again turned the tables and now very few philosophers or scientists still think that scientific knowledge is, or can be, proven knowledge. But few realize that with this the whole classical structure of intellectual values falls in ruins and has to be replaced: one cannot simply water down the ideal of proven truth - as some logical empiricists do — to the ideal of’probable truth’1 or — as some sociologists of knowledge do — to ‘truth by [changing] consensus’.2
Testing the null hypothesis: The forgotten legacy of Karl Popper?

Mick Wilkinson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.753636

IF: 3.9428

2013-05-01

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:Testing of the null hypothesis is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method and has its basis in the falsification theory of Karl Popper. Null hypothesis testing makes use of deductive reasoning to ensure that the truth of conclusions is irrefutable. In contrast, attempting to demonstrate the new facts on the basis of testing the experimental or research hypothesis makes use of inductive reasoning and is prone to the problem of the Uniformity of Nature assumption described by David Hume in the eighteenth century. Despite this issue and the well documented solution provided by Popper's falsification theory, the majority of publications are still written such that they suggest the research hypothesis is being tested. This is contrary to accepted scientific convention and possibly highlights a poor understanding of the application of conventional significance-based data analysis approaches. Our work should remain driven by conjecture and attempted falsification such that it is always the null hypothesis that is tested. The write up of our studies should make it clear that we are indeed testing the null hypothesis and conforming to the established and accepted philosophical conventions of the scientific method.

sport sciences
The dangerous misconceptions of Sir Karl Raimund Popper

Karl Svozil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0207115

2003-03-07

Abstract:Insofar as Sir Karl Raimund Popper's writings deal with political statements, they are evident; yet insofar as they deal with scientific issues, they are misleading. If applied to the concrete implementation of science, such as distribution of research funds and (peer) review, they would seriously impede progress.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Honesty is being put through the mill

Mark Buchanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02430-2

IF: 19.684

2024-03-15

Nature Physics

Abstract:Of course, some papers do little more than criticize, picking holes in previous arguments, or showing flaws in data analysis or a lack of full consideration of all possible interpretations. Such criticisms can sometimes be a little brutal, but these works are also ultimately positive — science depends on errors being challenged and ultimately corrected, even if this often takes some time and bruises some egos along the way. In this regard, Richard Feynman was correct in saying that in science, "we are trying to prove ourselves incorrect as quickly as possible". Again, it requires honesty. Some threats have come from organized and well-funded groups with political interests directly threatened by scientific information. No one can be unaware of the consistent efforts of the fossil fuel or tobacco industries over many years to spread doubts about the scientific consensus on climate change or the risks of smoking. Sadly, the consultants and public relations professionals behind these campaigns don't share the same norms of honesty as the scientific community. They're not trying to avoid spreading misleading information; quite the opposite.

physics, multidisciplinary
Mirrors without warnings

Roman Frigg,James Nguyen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02222-9

IF: 1.595

2019-05-21

Synthese

Abstract:Abstract Veritism, the position that truth is necessary for epistemic acceptability, seems to be in tension with the observation that much of our best science is not, strictly speaking, true when interpreted literally. This generates a paradox: (1) truth is necessary for epistemic acceptability; (2) the claims of science have to be taken literally; (3) much of what science produces is not literally true and yet it is acceptable. We frame Elgin’s project in True Enough as being motivated by, and offering a particular resolution to, this paradox. We discuss the paradox with a focus on scientific models and argue that there is another resolution available which is compatible with retaining veritism: rejecting the idea that scientific models should be interpreted literally.

history & philosophy of science
Redeeming Falsifiability?

Mark Whitmeyer,Kun Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.15723

2023-03-28

Abstract:We revisit Popper's falsifiability criterion. A tester hires a potential expert to produce a theory, offering payments contingent on the observed performance of the theory. We argue that if the informed expert can acquire additional information, falsifiability does have the power to identify worthless theories.

Theoretical Economics
Courant algebroids, derived brackets and even symplectic supermanifolds

Dmitry Roytenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/9910078

1999-10-15

Abstract:In this dissertation we study Courant algebroids, objects that first appeared in the work of T. Courant on Dirac structures; they were later studied by Liu, Weinstein and Xu who used Courant algebroids to generalize the notion of the Drinfeld double to Lie bialgebroids. As a first step towards understanding the complicated properties of Courant algebroids, we interpret them by associating to each Courant algebroid a strongly homotopy Lie algebra in a natural way. Next, we propose an alternative construction of the double of a Lie bialgebroid as a homological hamiltonian vector field on an even symplectic supermanifold. The classical BRST complex and the Weil algebra arise as special cases. We recover the Courant algebroid via the derived bracket construction and give a simple proof of the doubling theorem of Liu, Weinstein and Xu. We also introduce a generalization, quasi-Lie bialgebroids, analogous to Drinfeld's quasi-Lie bialgebras; we show that the derived bracket construction in this case also yields a Courant algebroid. Finally, we compute the Poisson cohomology of a one-parameter family of SU(2)- covariant Poisson structures on S^2. As an application, we show that these structures are non-trivial deformations of each other, and that they do not admit rescaling.

Differential Geometry,Symplectic Geometry
The Correctives

Preston Grassmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00376-2

IF: 64.8

2024-03-07

Nature

Abstract:Nature, Published online: 06 March 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00376-2 It's just an illusion.

multidisciplinary sciences
Enlightenment, Knowledge, Ignorance, Temptation

Frank Wilczek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107050990.005

2007-01-01

Abstract:I discuss the historical and conceptual roots of reasoning about the parameters of fundamental physics and cosmology based on selection effects. I argue concretely that such reasoning can and should be combined with arguments based on symmetry and dynamics; it supplements them, but does not replace them.
The natural selection of good science

Alexander J. Stewart,Joshua B. Plotkin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.00928

2020-03-02

Abstract:Scientists in some fields are concerned that many, or even most, published results are false. A high rate of false positives might arise accidentally, from shoddy research practices. Or it might be the inevitable result of institutional incentives that reward publication irrespective of veracity. Recent models and discussion of scientific culture predict selection for false-positive publications, as research labs that publish more positive findings out-compete more diligent labs. There is widespread debate about how scientific practices should be modified to avoid this degeneration. Some analyses suggest that "bad science" will persist even when labs are incentivized to undertake replication studies, and penalized for publications that later fail to replicate. Here we develop a framework for modelling the cultural evolution of research practices that allows labs to expend effort on theory - enabling them, at a cost, to focus on hypotheses that are more likely to be true on theoretical grounds. Theory restores the evolution of high effort in laboratory practice, and it suppresses false-positive publications to a technical minimum, even in the absence of replication. In fact, the mere ability choose between two sets of hypotheses - one with greater chance of being correct than the other - promotes better science than can be achieved by having effortless access to the better set of hypotheses. Combining theory and replication can have a synergistic effect in promoting good scientific methodology and reducing the rate of false-positive publications. Based on our analysis we propose four simple rules to promote good science in the face of pressure to publish.

Physics and Society,Populations and Evolution
A Popperian Falsification of Artificial Intelligence -- Lighthill Defended

Steven Meyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1704.08111

IF: 14.4

2017-04-23

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:The area of computation called artificial intelligence (AI) is falsified by describing a previous 1972 falsification of AI by British mathematical physicist James Lighthill. How Lighthill's arguments continue to apply to current AI is explained. It is argued that AI should use the Popperian scientific method in which it is the duty of scientists to attempt to falsify theories and if theories are falsified to replace or modify them. The paper describes the Popperian method and discusses Paul Nurse's application of the method to cell biology that also involves questions of mechanism and behavior. It is shown how Lighthill's falsifying arguments especially combinatorial explosion continue to apply to modern AI. Various skeptical arguments against the assumptions of AI mostly by physicists especially against Hilbert's philosophical programme that defined knowledge and truth as provable formal sentences. John von Neumann's arguments from natural complexity against neural networks and evolutionary algorithms are discussed. Next the game of chess is discussed to show how modern chess experts have reacted to computer chess programs. It is shown that currently chess masters can defeat any chess program using Kasperov's arguments from his 1997 Deep Blue match and aftermath. The game of 'go' and climate models are discussed to show computer applications where combinatorial explosion may not apply. The paper concludes by advocating studying computation as Peter Naur's Dataology.
Crucial Experimentation and Convincing Experimentation： on Franklin＇s Science Rationality Tactics

王延锋

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19484/j.cnki.1000-8934.2011.08.016

2011-01-01

Abstract:Duhem-Quine thesis,theory-loading of observations and the incommensurability of paradigms launch an attack on the rationality of scientific knowledge.Allan Franklin,a representative figure of New Experimentalism,defended the rationality of science from the case studies of modern physics experimentations.He proposed two concepts： crucial experimentation and convincing experimentation.When encountered competitive hypothesis,crucial experimentation can serve as judgment,while some convincing experimentations can change rapidly a deep-rooted ideal in the scientific communities.Experimentation is the most important basic in modern science,and modern physics which was backed on experimentation is rational.
Mistakes in Thinking about Cognitive Science and How to Reduce Them

P. N. Johnson-Laird

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/eneuro.0380-24.2024

2024-10-05

eNeuro

Abstract:This article allows readers to assess their ability to detect errors in thinking in seven case histories of psychologists' thoughts about cognitive science. It explains the nature of the errors and shows that some of them reflect faulty reasoning. It presents a "model method" to improve reasoning. It is based on the theory of mental models, which gives a general account of how individuals think, both deductively and indicatively, and which postulates that individuals construct mental models of possibilities in the world. The model method enhances both the accuracy and speed of reasoning. The article concludes with some general reflections on the role of knowledge of meanings, the world, and context in thinking.

neurosciences
Questionable Questions in Analysis and Synthesis

F Wilczek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4796675

IF: 3.5

2004-01-01

Physics Today

Abstract:In “Analysis and Synthesis IV: Limits and Supplements” (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 57 1 2004 10 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1650051. January 2004, page 10 ), Frank Wilczek describes the question “Why is the Solar System as it is?” as “discredited.” But to do so is to discredit the many fields of physics—including geophysics and planetology—that dare to address phenomena that are not “universal” or “clean.” Although our own solar system has a history that is perhaps accidental and idiosyncratic, it is nonetheless the “limited slice of the world” in which all of us live. A deeper understanding of the system’s admittedly messy history is essential if we are to address intelligently such issues as global change and resource management. And on a philosophical level, knowing the particular happenstances of our history is as important to our humanity as knowing the story of one’s own family or culture. To study that deep history is no less creditable or scientific than to seek transcendent explanations for worlds to which we have no access.There are so many messy, intellectually challenging questions to which the legions of brilliant, un- and underemployed physicists might fruitfully turn their thoughts. I am saddened to see such lines of inquiry devalued.© 2004 American Institute of Physics.
Better Being Wrong (Sometimes): Classroom Assessment that Enhances Student Learning and Motivation

James H. McMillan,Stephanie Moore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2020.1721414

2020-02-10

The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas

Abstract:An important element of the classroom assessment event and student performance occurs when students are wrong, which is often denigrated in our success-oriented secondary schools where only being right is valued and reinforced. This article argues that being wrong (sometimes) is an essential experience that enhances learning and motivation. Research in three fields – neurology, mindsets, and self-regulation – is reviewed briefly to show how making mistakes and learning errors are essential to achievement, as well as the development of positive dispositions such as persistence, resilience, and risk-taking. Two assessment-related dynamics – the being wrong environment in the class and the nature of classroom assessment – are discussed to show how teachers can foster experiences in which being wrong (sometimes) is an integral part of learning and motivation.
The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory

David Deutsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1508.02048

2016-06-18

Abstract:Claims that the standard methodology of scientific testing is inapplicable to Everettian quantum theory, and hence that the theory is untestable, are due to misconceptions about probability and about the logic of experimental testing. Refuting those claims by correcting those misconceptions leads to various simplifications, notably the elimination of everything probabilistic from fundamental physics (stochastic processes) and from the methodology of testing ('Bayesian' credences).

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics
Rethinking the Experiment

Mihai Nadin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1612.02491

2016-12-08

Abstract:The crisis in the reproducibility of experiments invites a re-evaluation of methods of inquiry and validation procedures. The text challenges current assumptions of knowledge acquisition and introduces G-complexity for defining decidable vs. non-decidable knowledge domains. A "second Cartesian revolution," informed by and in awareness of anticipatory processes, should result in scientific methods that transcend determinism and reductionism. Physics and physics-based disciplines convincingly ascertained themselves by adequately describing the non-living. A complementary perspective should account for the specific causality characteristic of life by integrating past, present, and future. Knowledge about anticipatory processes facilitates attainment of this goal. Society cannot afford the dead-end street of reductionism. Science, itself an expression of anticipatory activity, makes possible in our days alternative understandings of reality and its dynamics.

Other Quantitative Biology
Positive Deviance Underlies Successful Science: Normative Methodologies Risk Throwing out the Baby With the Bathwater

R. Hans Phaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680241235120

IF: 4.615

2024-02-20

Review of General Psychology

Abstract:Review of General Psychology, Ahead of Print. Successful science needs deviant ideas that may challenge established norms. The last decade saw an unprecedented science-engineering project, with strict rules on preregistration, statistical testing, result-independent guaranteed publication, replication, and openness badging being enforced by psychological journals. These normative methodologies seek to prevent failure (negative deviance) rather than promote success (positive deviance), and run counter to the historical development of successful science. By narrowly focusing on research data, while avoiding theoretical bias, they are inadequate for tackling, often intractable, scientific problems. Instead, unconventional, exceptional, and even initially implausible hypotheses should be fostered. A novel connection is drawn between positive deviance and the unplanned, haphazard evolution of successful science. Hypotheses compete for the highest fitness while probing an ever-changing, infinitely wide, empirical and theoretical landscape. The winner constitutes the positive deviant, but always remains subject to future competition. Losing negative deviants, which may share characteristics with winners, become irrelevant, sometimes long after their inception, and eventually sink into oblivion. Normative methodologies aim to curb negative deviants at their source, but also cut off positive deviants and may freeze successful science. More room for deviance and a theory primacy are advocated, allowing research to generate discovery and innovation in psychological science.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Some lessons for us scientists (too) from the "Sokal affair"

Pablo Echenique-Robba

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1311.5835

2013-11-22

History and Philosophy of Physics

Abstract:In this little non-technical piece, I argue that some of the lessons that can be learnt from the bold action carried out in 1996 by the physicist Alan Sokal and typically known as the "Sokal affair" not only apply to some sector of the humanities (which was the original target of the hoax), but also (with much less intensity, but still) to the hardest sciences.

From 'Not Wrong' To (Maybe) Right - How Ignoring Glaring Problems Can Sometimes Lead To Fruitful Theories.

From "Not Wrong" to (Maybe) Right

Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

Testing the null hypothesis: The forgotten legacy of Karl Popper?

The dangerous misconceptions of Sir Karl Raimund Popper

Honesty is being put through the mill

Mirrors without warnings

Redeeming Falsifiability?

Courant algebroids, derived brackets and even symplectic supermanifolds

The Correctives

Enlightenment, Knowledge, Ignorance, Temptation

The natural selection of good science

A Popperian Falsification of Artificial Intelligence -- Lighthill Defended

Crucial Experimentation and Convincing Experimentation： on Franklin＇s Science Rationality Tactics

Mistakes in Thinking about Cognitive Science and How to Reduce Them

Questionable Questions in Analysis and Synthesis

Better Being Wrong (Sometimes): Classroom Assessment that Enhances Student Learning and Motivation

The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory

Rethinking the Experiment

Positive Deviance Underlies Successful Science: Normative Methodologies Risk Throwing out the Baby With the Bathwater

Some lessons for us scientists (too) from the "Sokal affair"