Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sbcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!debray From: debray@sbcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: never believe what you read in the popular press about science Message-ID: <422@sbcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jul-83 14:34:57 EDT Article-I.D.: sbcs.422 Posted: Fri Jul 22 14:34:57 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Jul-83 17:00:42 EDT References: <1282@fortune.UUCP> Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook Lines: 37 >> It's all well and good to say that this is overly simplistic >> and frightening. But how about a good argument explaining in >> what way the "water as an intoxicant" example violates the >> scientific method. "Gin and water is intoxicating; vodka and water is intoxicating; rum and water is intoxicating; water is the *only* substance common to these three experiments; hence, water is intoxicating." That is an excellent example of pseudo-scientific method. It departs from proper scientific method at two places: (1) It asserts without proof that "water is the *only* substance common to all the cases" : without further analysis of the various substances, a scientist would only assert "water is AT LEAST ONE of the substances common to these cases". (2) It jumps to the conclusion that water *is* the intoxicant. A scientist, having asserted that water was *at least one* of the substances the three experiments had in common, would hypothesize that water is intoxicating, and then *TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS* by testing the intoxicating properties of pure water. If, and ONLY IF, this test came out positive would he conclude that water was intoxicating. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is the testing of theories by testing the predictions that the theories make. Remember reading about the Michelson-Morley experiment and its effect on the theory of "ether"? Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook