Correct, you have to start with the guess. I should have been more careful (Feynmann)
I can feel a lot of eyeballs rolling in this thread, what the hell are they talking about
1 Like
Both of you are correct.
A single correctly designed and implemented experiment can, and does, disprove a hypothesis or theory if its result invalidate a concept. Consider, for example, Einstein correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury using General Relativity, disproving the existence of Vulcan to account for mercury’s wobble. Or consider Pasteur’s disproving Spontaneous Generation. There are thousands of such examples. It is a basic tenet of the scientific method.
But a single experiment on the edges which merely pushes the envelop does not disprove a theory. It increases knowledge and may lead to disproving a concept, but to do so an experiment must be robust.
1 Like
Vulcan, is this where Spock came from?
1 Like
Permit me to nuance this but I so need to be pedantic!
Einstein’s relativity correctly explained the orbit of mercury, but as any theory can never be proven right, the orbit of Mercury could also be explained by the existence of Vulcan. Einstein’s theory does not in itself disprove the existence of Vulcan.
Nope.
The planet Vulcan was believed to be next to Mercury and, applying the Newtonian principle of the law of gravity, explained the wobble in Mercury’s orbit. If you accepted Newton’s theories you needed to accept another planet caused the wobble. Einstein disproved the existence of Vulcan. And that Newton was wrong.
The history of science is fascinating.
perhaps proof is being abused here
better to consider experimental results either consistent or inconsistent with theory
though a limited theory may be discarded with proven results
as for mercury and vulcan…where does dark matter enter into the matter
my view…we must not consider anything as permanent or absolute
Feynman’s hundreds of years needed sometimes to address a theory might apply to mercury and vulcan…there may yet be found some splash of dark matter that also augments mercury’s orbit as well as the sun’s gravity
1 Like
A valid point.
Evidence continued to mount consistent with Einstein’s explanation, including the solar eclipse in the early part of the 20th century, but you are correct. 
Einstein proved that Newton was wrong.
He did not disprove the existence of Vulcan. Or any other explanation for the orbit of Mercury, like aliens manipulating it. Indeed Einstein’s theory will most likely be proved wrong in the future - it’s not going to last forever and we need a theory of quantized gravity. Maybe when this comes up then that will be the explanation for Mercury’s orbit.
Again, you raise a valid point.
I am drawn to the alien manipulation hypothesis.
1 Like
I can see an issue with the experimentation guys here. I mean, I bet the aliens can outsmart them easy 
1 Like
A theory
Yep, over to the experimenter, be my guest.
2 Likes
Will need your DNA
2 Likes
In your research, did you or your colleagues ever consider, or discuss how paramecium appear to develop memory?
Hammeroff thinks memory may lie in the paramecium’s microtubules. If true, the complexity of brains relating to memory and possibly consciousness, just jumped by a factor of… ? 10? 100? 1000?
Peace
Bruce in Philly
My favorite tidbit along these lines is moths and butterflies remember what they learned as caterpillars - even though they turned into soup in the interim.
1 Like
no, my research was rats and humans…some equate them
I do not doubt the paramecium’s memory
Caution, before embracing a single experiment which disproves a theory it must under go validations by the scientific community just as a theory must be validated. (The figurative you have touched my nerve.)
One of my favorite expression of Einstein’s’ theory is: E=MC^2 + e, where e is an error component. I suspect e can cover a lot, especial over many billions of years of light travel. (of course I’ll never be around to confirm).
2 Likes
Yup
You’d think that would be the essential belief of a scientist.
2 Likes