quote
One aspect that might be a challenging obstacle to overcome is that this would require the scientific community whole-heartedly embrace null results. Franklin et al point out that:
Modern science’s professional culture prizes positive results, and offers
relatively few rewards to those who fail to find statistically significant relationships in their data. It also esteems apparently groundbreaking results far more
than attempts to replicate earlier research. PhDs, grant funding, publications,
promotions, lateral moves to more prestigious universities, professional
esteem, public attention—they all depend upon positive results that seem to
reveal something new. A scientist who tries to build his career on checking old
findings or publishing negative results isn’t likely to get very far.
end of quote
I beg to differ. Here we go
Case in point, the Cosmological constant problem
By Quantum field theory, its 10120 times bigger than its observed
EXPERIMENTAL results
We DO see the Cosmological constant brought up all the time. I.e. see Sean Carrol, in his
Caltech lectures

It is a myth that there are NO NULL results. Certain categories of problems, are celebrated as now for the time being allegedly UNSOLVABLE. which is a mating call for people to try to do them. I as an example tried it too, and still do.

Secondly the Riemann hypothesis, i.e. this one
quote
Has someone solved the Riemann hypothesis?
The Riemann hypothesis will probably remain at the top of mathematicians' wish lists for years to come. Despite its importance, no attempts so far have made much progress. Nov 11, 2022
end of quote
The goofs galore as to both of these, are widely celebrated and HARD problems, get people to put solutions in
print which get debated.

Even the failures are interesting and instructive: Very instructive

We can look at the idea of "null results" as maybe tied into this one
quote
What does Gödel's incompleteness theorem say?
Can you solve it? Gödel's incompleteness theorem ...
In 1931, the Austrian logician Kurt Gödel published his incompleteness theorem, a result widely considered one of the greatest intellectual achievements of modern times. The theorem states that in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved.
end of quote

So there you go.
HINT null results occur all the time. And the INTERSTING failures may at times even lead to great papers.

I have seen that more than once

    Andrew Beckwith I see what you are saying, but my emphasis is a little different (take a look at my subsequent discussion with the author). The comment you've quoted also has more to do with this problem you identified in respect of another essay on here:
    "In a word, the bloat in this is in huge facilities like CERN with few rivals as to cross checking. As an example the Fermi data sets hinted directly at the Higgs, but when Fermi was partly decommissioned, it took YEARS before some of the signal analysis of the signals were dredged up as a partial comparison as to the Higgs experiment in CERN."

    I think you are correct in your comment above.

    I would really appreciate your thought on my paper ("Self-Appropriation and Respect in a Moral Scientific Community"), as I'm hoping for feedback on my reasoning there! Do you have an essay submitted?

    Have a good day!

      Andrew Beckwith Thanks for the great examples! You say "It is a myth that there are NO NULL results." I wonder if you also think it is a myth that "theory falsification is always inconclusive", which is how I put it at the beginning of my paper?

      Note that I'm talking primarily about scientific theories, not mathematical theorems. The top level of the falsification tree on page 6 of my paper begins with an empirical objection (E) to the observable predictions of a scientific theory (T).

        Alex Nice analogy! That makes me wonder whether falsification trees would be useful in legal disputes. They might also help make transparent to others why, in controversial cases, the evidence was deemed sufficient to incriminate someone.

          Ines Samengo Thank you! Great points. I briefly consider the problem of exponential bifurcations at the top of page 7 where I propose a solution involving team adversarial collaborations. The idea is that two teams of researchers compete in an adversarial collaboration, sub-teams bifurcate as the tree branches. Perhaps that will just lead to many 1-on-1 adversarial collaborations, where each collaboration becomes overwhelmed with further bifurcations. But if they publish where in the tree they got to, then the rest of the scientific community can help. And there may be efficient ways of shutting down branches as "dead ends", preventing further growth in those directions.

          I think in many of the most interesting cases, it is going to be rather difficult to tell whether a theory has more branches than its negation, like my examples on page 7 of neuroscientific theories of consciousness and interpretations of quantum mechanics. But constructing falsifications trees may help determine this.

            Dear CoralBear,
            You have written a very important essay that can really change science towards the study of reality instead of the study of abstractions.
            Therefore, I highly appreciate and understand your work.
            My essay is devoted to the key facts that lead to new key laws that are not noticed by the generally accepted concept. But these laws may form a new science of studying reality without studying abstractions. I think you will also be interested in the elements of the deterministic functioning of the quantum solar system on the new laws that are given in the appendix, and which are similar to the quantum laws of the functioning of the Hydrogen atom.
            I wish you success!

            Dear CoralBear,
            I really wanted to thank you for the comments about my essay, to which I have now replied, however, your very interesting essay did make me think of another path to truth. .
            So, if a theory consists a a small number of very simple rules that have to be repeatedly applied many many times to achieve a result, and that result matches reality, then that theory is likely to be true. This assumes that the more times you apply the rules, the more likely any error in the theory is to show up, so if there are no errors after a large number of iterations, then your theory is probably on the right track.
            It is like being shown a fractal and being asked to reproduce it with your own computer program. You might be able to do this with a complicated program, which you then change to accommodate the changes in the fractal as it grows (so that the predictions of the program match the fractal), and there might be lots of different complicated programs that could do this. However, if you found a really simple program that repeated in a loop over and over again and continuously and accurately reproduced the fractal, then you would rightly think you had most probably discovered the original fractal program.
            Perhaps you could call this proof by construction.
            I would like to think this is an original idea - but I'm sure someone else will have thought of it!
            All the best.

            I read your essay with great interest and I really appreciate your idea of falsification trees.
            It could be useful to force a system of reciprocal falsification. In some disciplines such as theoretical physics, scientists seem to have reached a high degree of "autism" for which it is difficult to communicate outside one's own niche. This implies that, as you rightly note in your essay, a model can hardly be falsified except by someone outside that research niche.

            It is important that the falsification takes place in compliance with the scientific method, on the scientific merits of the models. Those who are subject to falsification must be able to know the reasons for the criticisms raised and must have the right to defend themselves, a bit like in the peer-review. Otherwise, one falls into the highly anti-scientific behaviors and oscure politics that characterize arXiv, as I describe in my essay "The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to science".

            Furthermore, it seems to me that your model of falsification assumes that scientific progress takes place through successive refinements of ideas. This is not always true, and some cases in which scientific progress takes place through revolution rather than evolution are precisely the ones you give in your essay.

              Kelvin McQueen
              <<My hope is that this will accelerate science down a route that leads us to nature's most fundamental truths.>>

              I believe that it is necessary to completely abandon the idea of "falsification" and deal with the solution of the "millennium problem No. 1" - the ontological justification of mathematics (ontological basification), and hence knowledge in general. That is, the construction of an ontological basis of knowledge: an ontological framework, carcass, foundation.
              Any theory that claims to be called "fundamental" must be ontologically justified.
              Other working theories are "effective". Like quantum theory and general relativity, for example.

              Here is the so-called. "The Big Bang Theory". In your scientific picture of the world there is a so-called. "Big Bang"?

              Doctors of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yuri Vladimirov notes in the article "PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" (No. 1, 2017, p 10):

              <<At present, the main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a holistic (monistic) physical picture of the world based on a single generalized category. At this point in time, it is "seen" (interpreted) differently from the standpoint of the three named paradigms: a single vacuum in the field theory approach, a single geometry in the geometric worldview, or a single system of relations (structure) in the relational worldview. In our opinion, these are different names for the same desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning.>>
              [https://lib.rudn.ru/file/Metaphysics%20#1_23_2017%20print.pdf]

              What does your method say?
              Have you tried to build your "holistic (monistic) physical picture of the world on the basis of a single generalized category"?
              What is in your scientific picture of the world "the desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning". What is its ontological structure?

                  7 days later

                  Hi CoralBear

                  I see you have 6 ratings and so need another 4 to qualify for the next stage of the contest. As do I. Would you like to help each other get across the line by reading and rating each others essays over the weekend? Mine is titled "Age of Knowledge"

                  Cheers
                  Swan

                    Steven Andresen Sure, I'll go ahead and read and rate yours now. I was not aware of the 10 rating minimum to qualify - where did you see that?

                      Vladimir Rogozhin
                      << I believe that it is necessary to completely abandon the idea of "falsification" and deal with the solution of the "millennium problem No. 1" - the ontological justification of mathematics >>

                      Thanks, I appreciate your comments. These are compatible, I believe. My essay recommends a strategy for using adversarial collaborations to more efficiently find solutions to scientific problems. So, I would envisage researchers who disagree about the ontological justification of mathematics collaborating and constructing falsification trees to map their collaboration. A proposed falsification need not be an experimental counterexample, it could also be, for example, a philosophical objection.

                        Donatello Dolce
                        Thanks, these are great comments! I'm curious to know why you think my model of falsification assumes that scientific progress takes place through successive refinements of ideas, since as you note, one of my primary illustrations was the Copernican revolution.

                          Kelvin McQueen Hi CoralBear. I'll be reading and reviewing your essay next. So you can bank on another rating from me, so you will need 3 others to qualify for the next stage in the contest. Not long to go so you might want to engage with some other contestants.
                          Swan

                              Kelvin McQueen Your essay was an enjoyable read. It was very well-written and exceptionally well-argued. I really like the concept of falsification trees. This concept is new to me, possibly it is created by you, but once I have learnt about them, they seem totally obvious and inevitable. I really like your examples as well. I have given a rating to your essay based on these comments.

                              My essay is on a somewhat different subject -- that of funding in research and how to make it more efficient and equitable. It is called "Efficient funding produces better science". Perhaps you would like to read and rate it?

                                  Kelvin McQueen I have just finished reading your essay. I'm sold, the falsification tree is a promising scientific methodology. Infact I would like to add and ask your opinion. I've been thinking a lot about how AI will be used in science to evaluate theories and papers. But rather than merely asking AI for its subjective opinions, if would be better if we programmed the AI to follow a rigorous methodology. Your falsification tree or some variation of it might be just the thing. Whats your initial impression of this idea?

                                  By the way, I prompted Chat GPT to review and rate your essay. You'll like what it had to share. I'll post after this comment.

                                  Having read your essay, I wonder if I could persuade you to employ your methodology on my theory? If you've read my essay then you'll know the case I make for a Darwinian Physics and cosmology. Will you be willing to process my ideas with your methodology? At least a tentative sample?

                                  For example "Cellular Biology and atomic physics are two different systems that possess the same structural theme and behavioral themes. ie, systems of units comprised of a nucleus shrouded within a shell, with the capacity to bond with each other and build bodies. My hypothesis explores the possibility that this is an example of co-vergent Darwinian evolution, where two diverse systems evolve similar themes because they face similar circumstances and evolve similar themes in response. Atoms are extraordinarily special little building blocks, as are cells, and it would be nice if science could provide an explanation for atomic specialties other than chance creation. And we know of a powerful organizational principle which has demonstrated its propensity to generate a system of the same general theme. This is good reasoning, however like you pointed out in your essay, people are married to their beliefs such as planetary epicycles, and in modern times people wont consider anything that contradicts big bang theory. My essay presents some of my reasoning, and they are good reasons. But people critique these very reasonable and valid arguments and ideas as if they didnt suspend their disbelief for even a moment in time, which is the appropriate thing to do. They never honored the points raised with the question "what if it were so". As I said, no suspension of disbelief. Tunnel vision.

                                  Anyway, given the theme of your essay, I cannot help but relate to the issues you seek to overcome. I would love for people to employ a method that aided objectivity.
                                  Kind regards
                                  Swan

                                      This is what Chat GPT had to say about your essay. And I agree with it

                                      Chat GPT 4
                                      The essay titled "A tool for helping science find the optimal path toward the truth: falsification trees" discusses the logic of falsification in scientific theories and proposes a novel approach called "falsification trees" to aid in theory evaluation. The essay begins by highlighting the inconclusiveness of theory falsification and how it opens up multiple pathways for scientific inquiry. It then introduces the concept of adversarial collaboration, where advocates of competing theories try to falsify each other's theories. The idea of a falsification tree emerges as a way to explore multiple scientific pathways simultaneously to identify the optimal path.

                                      The essay provides a detailed explanation of the logic of falsification, emphasizing the need to consider auxiliary assumptions when assessing whether evidence falsifies a theory. It draws on historical examples, such as the Copernican revolution, to illustrate how theory selection based on falsification can be influenced by subjective and non-objective factors. The essay argues against a social constructivist view of science and proposes adversarial collaborations and falsification trees as a way forward.

                                      Overall, the essay presents a clear and well-structured argument, explaining complex concepts in a coherent manner. It effectively combines theoretical discussion with historical examples to support its points. The proposal of falsification trees as a tool for scientific inquiry is intriguing and warrants further exploration. The essay provides a good foundation for understanding the concept and its potential implications.

                                      Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
                                      Chat GPT 4