- Well now, well now... everything you've presented is interesting, of course, but do you have any concrete applications for it?
- Yes, of course, I even have a certificate of field testing.
- We understand that you do, but the dissertation council will be interested in the experimental part of your research.
- Yes, I conducted an experiment on a real object that we have in the laboratory. I processed the results and compared them with the theoretical part. It all seems to be within the margin of error.
- And did you carry out your research on any motor other than the laboratory one?
- I didn't carry it out on any other than the laboratory one.
- So it turns out you've written a theory that has only been verified on a laboratory motor and not verified on any others?
- Why is that? All the other motors work on the same principles, which means the theory can be applied to them as well.
- Again, you can't guarantee that.
- How can I guarantee the completeness of induction?
- So it turns out your dissertation has no evidentiary basis.
- So it turns out no dissertation in the technical sciences can have an evidentiary basis.
- Hold on now — the graduate student who spoke before you, he's perfectly fine on this point, and you're not.
- He's not fine either. Understand that the “unprovability” of the theoretical part is a problem of method, not of any particular piece of research.
- Then apply a different method — what's the problem.
- The problem is that there is no other method.
- How can there be none? Others have one.
- The fact that they, or you, think there is one doesn't mean at all that there is.
It immediately reminded me of an old episode of “Yeralash,” where two schoolboys argue over whether parallel lines meet or not, and it kicks off with “and then, and then...”