Controversies Are Resolved in Science. Most people know that scientific investigations are generally more effective than in any other field investigations. It is because of the so-called "scientific method," a set of rules used to deal with difficulties, errors and controversies. A well-known nuclear physicist, John Huizenga, wrote a book in which this method was described. Let me summarize its description. Scientists, he wrote in 1993, are real people; they make mistakes. These errors, however, are generally found in discussions with colleagues, or during the peer review process, i.e. After that a document is submitted to a scientific journal. An experimental paper is not published unless it describes the procedure used by the author. The description must be sufficiently detailed to enable replication.
But even this is not a guarantee. Errors in published articles are rare, but they occur. An article usually raises additional investigations. Other scientists often try to confirm or refute the reported results. Replication of published results is an important scientific activity. "Scientific results, if it is valid," writes Huizenga, must be reproducible on demand. "When errors are discovered, recognized and corrected, the scientific approach quickly moved on the track, usually without notice or comment in the public press." The scientific approach, in other words, is self-regulating. The process may be slow but it works.
Invalid claims made by experimental scientists can be found in two different ways: by conducting similar experiments and comparing the results with the accepted theoretical predictions. The first approach is conceptually simple. Suppose that several researchers fail to validate an outcome, using the procedure described. It's usually a good reason for not accepting the initial application. Reproducibility on request, as stated above, is an important scientific requirement. But suppose that a reproducible result is in conflict with an existing theory. What should be dismissed, the experimental result or theory?
A theory in this competition is not just an assumption or logic/mathematical argument. It is a logical structure that is called to agree with a wide range of other experimental data. Scientists know the rule - "guiding theories but decide experiences." But they are very reluctant to abandon theories, especially those that match the different types of experimental results. Hesitation means to insist on the additional audit new experimental results. Referring to such situations, Huizenga has written: "sometimes, there are surprises in science and should be ready for them". Theories are not universal; scientists do not hesitate to amend, if necessary. The laws of motion, an accepted theory Newton, for example, have been changed, when they have been at loggerheads with the experimental data on particles moving at an extremely high speed. Controversies Are Resolved in Science
