That is not what Alex's argument amounted to. Alex amplified points about falsifiability of hypothesis - not about whether 'findings' are provable. What Alex defined as the Lombardi Hypothesis was tht which is implied in the introduction to the science paper: The recent discovery of a gammaretrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virusrelated virus (XMRV), in the tumor tissue of a subset of prostate cancer patients prompted us to test whether XMRV might be associated with CFS.
When it comes to real world phenomena - then evidence is required and 'proof' of evidence has to be demonstrated if others are to accept the reality of the claimed phenomena; in science the requirement (the source of 'proof') is that the results of experiment should be reproducable. To argue that only by an absolute strict adherence to a single protocol can a result be reproduced requires an extraordinary explanation of why a result can only be achieved by that strict adherence. In the absence of a sustainable argument for the need for a wholly undeviating replication of Lombardi et al, then simply saying that all those studies which fail to reproduce the Lombardi results are 'bad science' is absurd. It maybe that the Lipkin and BWG studies will demonstrate that XMRV, as a non contaminant, can be detected in blood, and is indeed present in some people with a diagnosis of M.E/CFS - and that will indeed provide a 'proof' of the phenomenon that Lombardi et al claimed to have observed. Conversley even if neither the Lipkin nor the BWG studies find XMRV in the blood of people with an M.E/CFS diagnosis, then the Lombardi Hypothesis will remain unfalsified because that hypothesis (as defined by Alex) is not reliant on XMRV being identified in the blood of M.E/CFS diagnosed people.
It is preposterous to suggest that technological applications and medical interventions do not require 'proof' - is there anyone reading this forum who would approve of CBT/GET treatments on the basis that the hypothesis that "CBT/GET helps some people with M.E/CFS" has not been falsified ? Somehow I don't think so, and that what would be expected is some very strong proof/evidence that CBT/GET actually does help people with M.E/CFS, before anyoe reading this forum would take part in CBT/GET. Hypothesis of disease association or causation may not of itself demand 'proof' but the application of technology in achieving a test of a hypothesis does require proof of adequate function - in the XMRV case, if the technology of observation is shown to be vulnerable to error, then validation of that technology is required - that is, the technology has to be 'prooved' as sound.
IVI
IVI, the fact you are using the word 'proof' now in parentheses indicates you understand that use of the word previously was problematic, so I'm pleased about that.
Alex appears to have been using the Popperian context of falsifiability and disproving in the way I said, so I stand by that.
What I think you have a problem understanding is that many people here are not latching onto the WPI as proven until otherwise disproven. What many people want to see is the science pan out until the WPI's claims are correctly disproven, or until enough evidence accrues to enable a reasonable prediction it is correct, and that XMRV is most likely to cause ME/CFS, in which case the possibility of treatment then becomes available.
To take your CBT/GET example. IF there was plausible evidence that CBT/GET helps anybody with ME/CFS, people would be taking up that offer. They could not expect 'proof'. The incoherence and implausibility of the claims, followed by the poor empirical adequacy, that CBT/GET helps people with ME/CFS (actual ME/CFS now- not metaphorical fatigue!) is what makes people not want CBT/GET.
Your use of the word proof is not correct because you've been misrepresenting (miscontruing, probably) what many - possibly most- people in this community know about science, the issue of CBT/GET and about the whole saga of XMRV. You think they're all emotionally supporting XMRV- which they are not. This may be because of the way the community is being misrepresented by her majesty ERV and the Bad Science mob. ERV believes its her job to educate the plebs that XMRV has nothing to do with ME/CFS - her attendance on the BS forum shows this- which makes her an idiot and unable to grasp the scientific process.
The ME/CFS community is mostly waiting for the science to pan out- free from politics- and for good science to prevail. If they don't like psychogenic explanations, it's because they are implausible- products of badly done 'science'.
But none of this can adequately be explained by claiming 'proof' is needed. Most people in this community have become only too aware of the problems of that word when applied to the scientific process.
