In physics discourse, arguments are made in a completely mathematical way. Akin to the criteria for proof in physics, there is a definite right or wrong conclusion to draw from a given mathematical argument. As we all know, there is no ambiguity in the result of arithmetic; 2 + 2 = 4 every time, and if we get a different result then we are wrong. Simple as that. Here is one of my favorite examples from the University of Utah:
Perhaps this proof might be difficult to understand for the non-physicist, but with a quick Google search it is easy to see the air-tight reasoning at play. This ties into physics in a number of different applications, like Chaos Theory, which depends largely on the rationality of certain coefficients. These kinds of arguments are the foundations of physics. Everything we do in physics today is built on the arguments and conclusions drawn from the mathematics and data analysis of the generations before us.
If an institution or physics community is capable of producing these rigorous arguments, making use of weighty evidence, then they meet the standards of communication conventions in the field. This is essential to having an institutions research published, which as I’ve pointed out here is essential to the progress of physics. This sort of progress is an implicit value in all of what we do.
Charles Golden 