Brian63

This article would be of interest to you Scientae:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html" target="_blank">Proving a Negative</a>

Brian

Principia

Thank you guys... I certainly received more than I had anticipated. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Permit me to describe the situation, which may limit the scope of the discussion for me just a tad. I was in a seminar in which the speaker argued that contemporary research is far more difficult because scientists are required to 'know' in advance the results of their experiments in order to receive funding. I asked the question whether it was possible to ask questions of the nature 'We hypothesize that there are no other genes involved in disease X' and then proceed to perform an exhaustive search of genes (with the intent of getting more funding for a more elaborate project).

The speaker's rather condescending reply was that 'All scientists know better than to try to prove a negative. This kind of research will never get funded.' At the time, I didn't have a good response. But upon further analysis, I wasn't entirely convinced that science cannot (or should not) proceed in that fashion.

Well, I apologize if this discussion distracts slightly from the normal theme of God(s), but I appreciate any more input.

SC

owleye

Scientiae....

Your pinning down the scope of the issue to one involving science is helpful. It sounds like the speaker was using the "You can't prove a negative" as a way of dismissing your idea. I've had some experience with the problem the speaker was addressing when I worked for NASA. When funding is tied to expected results you can be sure that politicians consider scientists in the same light they put engineers and managers.

As such, I don't think the real issue has much to do with proving a negative. What politicians (and the public they represent) are concerned about is the general inability of scientists to be pinned down. Since scientists live in a world in which all statements have to be guarded, lest they be criticized by their peers (also they risk their own status as a scientist generally), it becomes extremely difficult to set policy. Consider, for example, how long the issue of global warning had been clouded by uncertainties within the scientific community.

In any case, unless there is an overarching theoretical framework in which the future can be predicted with precision, the best that can be done is, as you say, to consider all the relevant possibilities and search through them exhaustively. Even here, of course, there will be some element of doubt that creeps in which will cause the scientist to guard against that which hasn't been considered.

Fell