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