| That is indeed the logical consequence. I’m not disagreeing. There are a plethora of factors that make, say, results of a social science statistical analysis less likely than they might seem. Biases, wrong assumptions during statistical analysis, … I’m also not claiming that it’s impossible to find better methods that shield scientists much better against, for example, biases. I do indeed think that this (developing new and better methods) is where non-natural sciences have their most important work in front of them. This is where it’s at for them, this is where real revolutions of several fields are possible. If only someone knew how exactly. Until then we have to deal with what we have. I think it works relatively well, considering, but I’m certainly not happy about the current state. When it comes to this particular theory, it seems to me that the odds are pretty good that it is true. The explanation for why the copy is the way it is – it was painted by someone with a knowledge of how the original was painted – doesn’t seem that outrageous and pretty logical to me. It’s certainly always possible that there is a better one. (By the way, I disagree vehemently that those kinds of theories have little impact on our lives. This one maybe not, but forensic science – which is very similar in its method and process to what this researcher did – impacts a great many people. There researchers will often take a first look at something and immediately start forming hypotheses, which they then seek to confirm or falsify by further collecting evidence. Even worse: Researchers might be told hypotheses by non-researchers – say the police. It’s important that we find better ways to do it. It's important that we know exactly how sure or unsure we can be about the results.) Again, to re-iterate: Just because there is justified doubt doesn’t mean this research is worthless (which your tone seemed to imply, maybe I’m wrong about that). |