On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Phil Veldhuis wrote:
 
> [log in to unmask] insightfully writes:
>
> >      That is proponents of the theory design experiments to prove
> >      their belief and explain away the arguments of the opponents.
>
> Of course, lack of success carries a lesson too.  If your experimental
> designs continue to fail, you might just give up.
 
One of the tough things about theories is that most
are impossible to *prove* and often nearly impossible to
disprove. Generally, all one can do is to build up a case for or
against, which is convincing against all challenges. Often, the
best way to build up that case is to challenge one's own beliefs.
(I guess that's why so many scientists are religious sceptics).
 
Of course if you manage to disprove your own theory it can
be severely crushing, which maybe explains why, sometimes,
people fail to "see the obvious".
 
> Why we probably all have our doubts in the wake of the OJ simpson thing,
> the law system is based on the adversarial system because it does tend to
> produce the truth.  That is, two well meaning individuals, who are both
> deeply motivated by their commitment to their theory, will accomplish
> more opposed to each other, than if they both were just objective in
> motive.
 
Showing that the same applies to proof in law as in science
(and in engineering, my discpline). I'm not sure of the wordings
in US or Canadian law, but in the UK it's "guilty _beyond all
reasonable doubt_".
 
The problem is in discovering or interpreting "reasonable doubt".
 
Regards,
--
Gordon Scott   [log in to unmask]   Hampshire, England.
               [log in to unmask]
               Beekeeper; Kendo 3rd Dan; Sometime sailor.
The Basingstoke Beekeeper (newsletter) [log in to unmask]