| Abstract: | This paper is the first of what is intended to be a series of papers which investigate the foundations of reliability theory, particularly when applied to the prediction process. It will contrast current reliability practice against those practices common in normal science and engineering. The claim will be made that in general the prediction process as used in reliability, when stripped of the mathematical embellishments, is no more than simple enumeration: a method long held by the philosophers of science to be unreliable and in general a poor basis on which to make predictions. This initial paper rejects the statistical method as being an insufficient basis for making predictions and claims that it is incapable of logically supporting its conclusions. Although no evidence is provided to substantiate this claim, a number of scientific methods, both of historical and present day importance, are briefly reviewed with which one can contrast the statistical method. |
