Theory cannot be opposed to experimentation because theory is an inductive inference from experimentation. Not even physicists who elect to opine on the topic will have the chutzpah to directly argue that their theories refute or oppose experimental data. Nevertheless, that is precisely the inference that will be encouraged as was the case, for example, in the press release of the American Physical Society.

It is important to identify the sphere of applicability of a putative biological fact because that identification defines who has the right and the responsibility to participate in the choice of the non-empirical decisional rules needed to determine what is fact. If the purpose for assessing whether a statement is a fact is purely scientific, and has no public-health or other societal significance, then scientists are the appropriate group to decide the epistemological status of the judgment as a scientific fact. For example, whether or not it is a scientific fact that EMFs can affect the growth rate of laboratory animals, or can affect cellular transcription in vitro, ought to be decided by biological scientists according to a scale of certainty or an expected quantum of evidence that is typically used when resolving other similar or related questions. It might be argued that the standard to be met by the pertinent evidence is or should be beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, or persuasive. But whatever the burden is that must be met by a proponent of the idea that fields do affect growth rate of animals or cellular transcription, the choice of the applicable standard belongs collectively to the scientific community and not, for example, to Congress or a court.

On the other hand, when scientific evidence is being evaluated for a purpose that impacts on society at large, the public (through its representatives) must play an important role in the choice of some of the non-empirical reasoning principles needed to assess whether a particular judgment is a scientific fact. The extent of the burden of proof is perhaps the most fundamental issue that ought to be decided by society at large. It is simply outrageous to ask any special-interest group to resolve this issue on behalf of the general public. It is still worse to ask a special-interest group consisting of physicists because they are nearly certain to state a standard that is more extreme than any other group in the sense of being farther from the standard that is even followed by the layman and ordinarily codified into law. Indeed, it is probably the case that the standard of physicists exceeds that of corporate officers of electric power companies (who, in contradistinction to physicists, have conceded that EMF-induced bioeffects exist).

 Marino Home Page | Research Interests

32910