|
Ok .. Science in general can be distinguished into:
(i) theory and;
(ii)observation/experiment (observation, for short).
For observations (ie: the data), tests to assess whether the data is independently verifiable could be split into two parts:
i) Test #1 (Pass/Fail): say, a hard-copy printout, or release of raw electronic data giving unmanipulated access to others;
ii) Test #2 (Pass/Fail): a thorough description of (a) how to set up the instruments, tune them, and; (b) how to recreate the events leading to the generation of the data.
For theory (or hypothesis), tests to assess whether the theory is independently verifiable might simply be:
iii) Test #3 (Pass/Fail): Publication of the idea .. ie: everyone gets to the ability to check the details of the theory, until they can replicate those details with precision.
Self-consistency of a theory is also vital:
Determination of a theory's self-consistency has to be based on a "Pass" result to test #3. It's entirely possible to have a theory which is objective and independently verifiable, and for that theory to be internally inconsistent. But, unless it is both objective and independently verifiable, it might be impossible to work out that it is internally inconsistent.
Mathematics thus performs the function of assessing the self-consistency of propositional outcomes, outlined as results.
=================================== ================
In the case of Speigel's paper:
i) Test#1 result is a 'Pass', as the empirical data underpinning the assumption that abiogenetic life arose rapidly on Earth, is readily available for review by anybody (they have tabulated it);
ii) Test#2 result is a 'Pass' as the conditions for recreation of the measurements of the evidence that abiogentic life arose rapidly on Earth is readily available to everyone;
ii) Test#3 result is a 'Pass' because I found their paper ... I could read it, and I could educate myself sufficiently to understand what Bayesian Inference is, (I thus understand their methodology). More importantly, the paper has been submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA and will undergo rigorous peer-scrutiny.
Self-consistency
Each step in the Bayesian process has been clearly outlined in the paper. The mathematical steps in their analysis is open for all to scrutinise. They have tabulated their model parameters and provided sensitivity analyses applicable to pessimistic and optimistic values. They have published the algorithms used and provided results so they can be checked. The results have been bounded into upper and lower categories.
The conclusion is that their analysis is self-consistent.
None of the authors has made any assertions as to whether the analysis results in TRUTH. The assumption that this analysis attempts to portray TRUTH, lies entirely with those attempting to decry this work as 'subjective'.
These 'decriers' have provided no scientific basis whatsoever for their 'opinions' and are thus not practising Science.
Cheers
|