Testing is a natural scientific response to confirm or dispel an idea.
Testing falls into two primary functions, Verification and Validation.
Most people are familiar with Verification testing. You use the tests to verify that the idea/device/system provides the expected outputs given the proper input stimulus.
In component testing, you want to verify that the device responds as designed or advertised. I have had a lot of fun with the latter as some marketers just cannot help themselves when making outlandish claims for their new toys.
I worked as an Independent Verification and Validation engineer on some very large aerospace systems and I had a wonderful time deflating exotic ideas about the technology implementations being developed.
For the most part, Verification Testing is straight forward. You establish the inputs and measure the outputs. Standard black box testing technique. The device either meets specification or it does not.
Validation Testing is similar but very different from Verification Testing.
Validation involves analyzing the resulting Verification Testing results to determine if the final product satisfies the intended uses of the product.
In essence, Validation assess the question of can the intended users, use the product to do the job they need it to do.
Depending upon your user base, this becomes a very difficult task.
Each user has a perceived notion of what the product needs to do for them. Very subtle implementation decisions can result in a product that is technically perfect, but useless. Sort of like contacting Microsoft Support!
In some cases, Validation testing takes you out of the comfortable area of specific input and output and into a more fuzzy world of user perception. Not an easy task, thought there are some excellent analysis tools available to help resolve this level of testing.
Most of my current work involves Validating my current solution for a Unified Field Theory.
The issues involved are both technical and perception. Many of the existing scientific theories are used with both verified test results and with rationalized validation through consensus.
This last issue is the biggest hurdle. Especially since I bring into question the works of Nobel Laureates in Theoretical Physics for the past 120 years.
When I tried to verify their results, I discovered that most have never been really validated or indeed verified with hard testing.
That result surprised me. I had been taught that science was built entirely by independently verified testing.
That is not the case with many of the current Theoretical Physics Theories. The excuse has been based upon the level of complexity and untestable nature of the issues involved.
Using standard analysis of public domain data, I have been able to show that most of these excuses are not true and that those theories are false.
So my advice on any of the current theories is to trust but verify. There is nothing, including ideas, that cannot be tested.
If someone cannot provide a theoretical model that cannot be tested, then it should not be used until sufficient model definition is developed and adequate independent testing can occur.
DAB
